See AI Disclaimer at Bottom
Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Town Administrator Report (Link: 00:04:00 – 00:13:00)
Chair Katie Phelan opened the November 5th Select Board meeting, noting that it was being recorded. The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Phelan explained that the meeting was being held in the school building rather than the senior center due to technical upgrades at the senior center, and that school announcements would periodically be heard as the school was having open house that evening.
Town Administrator Nicholas Conners began his report by highlighting that Anthony Athanas and his family hosted seniors from the Housing Authority at their restaurant that day, thanking them for their generosity and community commitment. Conners announced that Governor Healey’s office released earmarks for the community, including funding for new kitchen equipment at the senior center and approximately $35,000 toward the high school track for planning and design purposes. He noted that the track funding would likely be used for future investment planning rather than spot improvements.
Conners thanked Jody Watts and the War Memorial Scholarship Committee for raising approximately $7,000 through sponsored brick sales. He also announced that the park grant sought by community development for the Avid playground was awarded, which relates to an article on the draft warrant to be discussed later. Conners personally thanked Heidi and the senior center team for hosting him at a lunch and learn event where he answered questions from attendees.
On the human resources front, Conners welcomed Crystal, a new customer service representative with a banking background who was working that evening with Patrick at Town Hall. This position backfills for a representative moving to the Building Commissioner’s office as full-time administrative staff. The fire department extended four conditional offers – one lateral and three new hires – while the police department extended two conditional offers for new officers who accepted on the spot. Conners noted that all candidates were committed to the community and excited to work in Swampscott.
Conners reported that the Town Clerk and Finance Director positions have been posted since the last meeting. The assessor position was reposted with MMA to attract more candidates, as they had not received many strong applicants. He indicated he would return to the board if salary adjustments were needed and mentioned that the Board of Assessors sent a memo about potential reorganization or different staffing approaches.
The police department received full accreditation from the Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission, which Conners noted required significant work from leadership and officers. Patrick has been leading the review of capital spending for the current year and new requests, with completion expected by the following day.
Conners discussed recent community meetings regarding the King’s Beach UV project and community space in Hadley, stating that town staff gained better understanding of community concerns. For the King’s Beach project specifically, Gino is working to schedule Kleinfeld to present at the next meeting about their completed report and potential future project with Lynn. Conners emphasized that Kleinfeld must present to the board before any future project scope can move forward.
Committee member Danielle Leonard asked whether the Kleinfeld report had been presented to the Water Sewer Commission. Conners confirmed that Gino attended their meeting the previous week and believed they reviewed the report, with the goal of ensuring the committee focused on their charge while reviewing the technical aspects. Phelan asked if the Water Sewer Commission would join the conversation with Kleinfeld, and Conners said they could arrange that, even if it meant waiting two more weeks to get the right people together.
Committee member David Grishman praised a four-part series on mindful parenting and stress reduction from the Health Department, asking if it was funded through ARPA mental health funding. Conners confirmed it was ARPA-funded. Grishman noted the Friday morning timing might work for some parents but could be stressful for others or require time off work, suggesting consideration of weekend scheduling. Conners agreed to share this feedback with Jeff for future programming.
Public Comment (Link: 00:13:00 – 00:25:00)
Chair Phelan opened public comment, reminding speakers of the three-minute limit and requesting they state their name and address.
Deb Newman of Barnstable Street spoke about a proposed rodenticide bylaw that she understood would be considered for the spring warrant, but requested it be considered for the upcoming warrant instead. She had amended the proposal and provided copies, noting it contained alternatives to anticoagulant rodenticides and emphasized Integrated Pest Management. Newman mentioned that Swampscott was not currently using these rodenticides and highlighted that contraception methods were being successfully used at the fire station.
Bill Demento of Precinct 6, 1008 Paradise Road, called in remotely regarding an auction notice at the Hawthorne. He had reviewed the lease and purchase and sale agreements and could not find provisions allowing removal of ovens and heating equipment. Demento questioned whether the building would be without heat during winter and expressed frustration that the board does not answer questions during public comment, contrasting this with New York City’s practice.
Charlie Patzers of Atlantic Avenue, who identified himself as a member of the Board of Assessors, urged the board to properly fund a full-time assessor position. He emphasized that tax revenue depends on assessments and that the Department of Revenue had repeatedly informed the town that a full-time assessor was needed. Patzers stated the current part-time position was inadequate and that the advertised salary of approximately $85,000 was grossly inadequate, comparing it to the recreation director position that received a 25% increase after initial posting.
Joan Egri of 10 Ocean Street in Lynn stated she had two overdue public records requests from October 15th and October 30th. She reported receiving no response from the town clerk despite repeated inquiries, including one request with a $600 fee that had not been processed.
Mara Lau of Look Road requested a community walkthrough of Hadley School as both a community event and historical reminder. She argued this would highlight how the town ignored basic maintenance for half a century while the building operated as a school for 113 years, creating decrepit conditions for students and staff. Lau criticized the poor communication process regarding the Hadley project, noting that only the first public meeting was properly advertised while subsequent meetings at the select board, planning board, and with Mr. Mallory were not well publicized. She mentioned questions about taxes and requested explanation of the PILOT program from the LDA agreement, suggesting a select board member should attend meetings to explain finances. Lau also raised concerns about parking lot entrance alignment at Blaney before her time expired.
Katie Arrington of 40 Roy Street attempted to reserve time for the next meeting but was informed by committee members that this was not permitted. Phelan confirmed they could not accommodate such requests and noted that Lau’s written comments would still be accepted. The public comment period concluded with no additional speakers, and Phelan announced they would move to new and old business after a brief pause for a school announcement about AP Civics in room B129.
Hawthorne Restaurant Site Discussion (Link: 00:25:00 – 01:07:00)
Chair Phelan jokingly noted that the Hawthorne Restaurant discussion was on the agenda anyway, following Bill Demento’s earlier public comment. Town Administrator Conners provided a timeline update starting from the October 22nd meeting. On October 23rd, the town received notice from the Athanas family and their attorney that they would not continue operating past their current agreement, which expires December 31st. Over that weekend, staff discovered an auction had been posted for personal property items within the building.
Starting October 30th, staff held a call with Anthony Athanas and his attorney that included staff and committee member Mary Ellen Fletcher representing the board. The town requested the Athanas family consider staying open beyond the currently signed agreement, and they took this under consideration before responding at the beginning of the week that they were unable to do so. Conners noted the town appreciated that the family took time over the weekend to discuss this as a family.
The town also asked about the possibility of equipment being left in place with a delay of the auction, not knowing what the final outcome or use of the property would be. The request was made with the idea that if the building is staying or if there is a delay before demolition, the town would not want the building vacant for an extended period. The town might go before town meeting to ask for authorization to seek another tenant on a short-term basis or something beyond that depending on the work of the Reuse Committee.
The Athanas family is generally open to hearing what the town intends this request to mean, with the framework being that the town would come to an understanding that evening of how to move forward and what may be on the town meeting warrant. This would then be communicated with the family’s attorney, Mr. Peterson, for an informed discussion on the family side to determine what might work. Conners noted that KP Law suggested considering going back to town meeting, whether in a special town meeting or as an article for December 1st, to give the board ability to extend the agreement either for short or longer term tenant or an agreement that allows equipment to remain while the town figures out next steps.
Conners requested KP Law gather information about RFPs or other types of requests so that if the board and community decide to move forward with seeking a tenant, they would not be starting from scratch. He also noted that in reviewing the auction items list, KP Law, community development staff, and the building commissioner had questions about approximately twelve to fifteen items regarding whether they should be left with the building when vacated. This list was shared with the Athanas family’s attorneys for their feedback.
Phelan then disclosed information that had been discussed in executive session regarding conversations about the adjacent church parking lot parcel. She stated the board had voted to support a letter of intent going forward to negotiate purchase of a portion of that parcel, contingent upon town meeting vote. This is a non-binding LOI with a shape to be determined due to constraints on the church’s part.
Committee member Grishman clarified that conversations had been held with the Monsignor, but no LOI was signed yet as it was still in the drafting stage. He noted there was a high-level verbal understanding but many details still to be worked out, and the archdiocese is actually the owner, meaning there are many steps before anything would happen. Conners emphasized this was a letter of intent to continue discussion, not a binding offer to purchase. Committee member Leonard noted this was the second letter with the archdiocese, as the first letter expired in December, and they were keeping the ball going. Grishman corrected that the first letter was with the church, not the archdiocese.
Conners outlined the available choices: leaving the building vacant and letting the town decide what happens while carrying a more expensive building and worrying about deterioration, or pursuing agreements that would allow the Athanas family to leave property in the building until spring with a delay of the auction. The goal would be to have either short or long-term tenancy so equipment would be available as a potential benefit for both the family selling it and a future tenant who could negotiate directly before any other sale. Both short and long-term options would require an RFI or RFP process following Chapter 30B procurement law.
Conners reminded the board that demolition was scheduled in the capital plan for 2028, which was presented as a placeholder the previous year. Leonard expressed preference for putting out an RFP as soon as possible to get someone in the building to keep heat on and maintain a functional center, noting the Athanas family was open to leaving equipment. Grishman agreed with the ASAP approach and asked about the realistic possibility of the family holding off on the auction and the appropriate length of time for town meeting authorization.
Committee member Fletcher noted it was a catch-22 situation because while they didn’t want to commit to an extensive lease of two to three years, they also faced finding a tenant willing to go in for just a year. She suggested 18 months to two years as a compromise, stating it was a no-brainer that they wouldn’t consider leaving the building vacant without equipment.
Conners clarified that the discussion with the Athanas family involved delaying the auction until spring of the next calendar year, as their vendor indicated that the current time was the last good opportunity before Christmas and New Year’s, with spring being the next optimal time. He noted that without authorization, they could say they would award pending authorization, but not giving potential tenants a sense of timeline would inhibit the number of responses received.
Phelan suggested the RFP scope should be at least until the end of 2028 to provide flexibility if capital came into play and the decision was made to demolish the building. She noted this was originally a placeholder estimate that didn’t contemplate the church lot or part of it, and now that was being contemplated, it could change things. Leonard suggested three years because it’s easier to go shorter than longer, and they could work within parameters to give the Athanas family a good deal while facilitating holding onto their equipment.
Conners confirmed that a warrant article would be needed for the potential storage of equipment if the Athanas family allowed it. He explained that while the town has the right under Chapter 40, Section 3 of state law for revocable license permits, KP Law recommended continuing to go before town meeting for this particular parcel because the community had clearly given direction at town meeting for this approach. He clarified that they didn’t have to ask town meeting initially to allow the Athanas family to stay because it was part of the original purchase transaction where they withheld rights to continue operating.
Committee member Grishman suggested opening the discussion to public comment since they normally do for topics like this. Brian Watson from the Hawthorne Reuse Committee spoke, noting it was difficult to determine lease end dates without knowing the final plan. He reported that their committee had completed analysis of the single lot site and would make it official with a vote in a week, and they had drawn plans for the double lot showing the entire church lot. Watson suggested the committee could coalesce around a recommendation for the second site in about three months, which could help the Select Board determine timing. He felt three years seemed excessively long unless the ultimate plan was always to have a tenanted restaurant, and if there was a good chance the building would be demolished, they would want as short a time as possible.
Charlie Patzios asked about the “nuclear option” if the Athanas family decided not to stay, but Phelan clarified they were definitely leaving and had already been asked to stay multiple times. The only conversation remaining was about equipment, and that was to provide multiple avenues for a non-vacant building solution.
Phelan noted that in an ideal world they would already have recommendations from the Hawthorne committee, but they didn’t have the luxury to wait during winter months with a vacant building. She felt three years wasn’t that long given the significant investment required and the building’s condition, though she wasn’t certain who they would find even with a three-year ask.
Leonard concluded that the Hawthorne Reuse Committee’s work was separate from their current decision and they should give Conners clear direction. The board agreed that Conners would draft an RFP for up to 36 months subject to town meeting authorization, with closing after town meeting. Conners would also negotiate with the Athanas family about leaving equipment, subject to town meeting approval. The board concluded this discussion and moved on to the next agenda item about fish pier repairs.
Fish Pier Repairs Update (Link: 01:07:00 – 01:19:00)
A speaker provided an update on behalf of Gino, who was unable to attend the meeting, regarding the planned rehabilitation of the fish pier. The speaker noted they staff the Harbor Waterfront Advisory Committee, with committee member Leonard continuing as liaison to the committee. Last year’s town meeting allocated $150,000 to make improvements to the pier, and the town received a report and analysis of the pier’s condition from Smith Marine. The Harbor Waterfront Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal and worked with staff including Gino and Natalie on procurement for the project.
The original estimate was $150,000, with $10,000 used for camera repairs completed by the facilities department with Max, leaving $140,000 remaining. The bid opening was held in August with only one bidder, White Marine, submitting a bid price of $195,750, creating a shortage of approximately $56,000. Gino has been in contact with the lowest bidder to determine if several scope items could be removed to address repairs during the current construction season or off-season during winter months. The discussion is ongoing with hopes to hear from the contractor by the end of the week about reaching an agreement.
Town Administrator Conners added that Gino included the ask for additional funds in future capital years, understanding there is a shortfall and that if some work is completed now, they will necessarily need to return to complete remaining work. Gino has already included this in future requests. The speaker clarified this was just an update with no request for a vote.
Committee member Grishman asked about the extent of the repairs. Leonard responded that none of the repairs are critical, with items categorized by color and no red critical items identified. The repairs are more orange and yellow level items, with some potentially able to be deferred while using the remaining $140,000 for truly critical needs. Nothing was glaring or in need of urgent repair, and the pier is not at risk of collapse.
The speaker elaborated that repairs include some safety items such as decking repairs, support tile repairs, bracing, ladder repairs, and fuel line repairs. While not critical, these represent deferred maintenance that should be addressed now that funds are available. Grishman confirmed it seemed the scope could be reduced to fit the available budget.
Leonard asked about grants from the harbor seaport. The speaker explained they always look for available funding but didn’t find anything they could match this year. The last grant received was for design of a new pier, which was not well received by the community. The committee and finance team are taking another look to see if regular maintenance and repairs could meet community needs while preventing deterioration from deferred maintenance.
Leonard noted that much time had been devoted to the new pier idea while regular maintenance was forgotten, and the allocated funds would address maintenance needs from the past couple of years that had been put on the back burner due to the grandiose idea of a five to ten million dollar pier that ultimately wasn’t successful with the community. She emphasized the need to complete necessary maintenance work while noting nothing required immediate investment of the full $200,000 plus amount.
Chair Phelan used the analogy of a used car, questioning how much money to invest before getting a new one. She noted that while the planned pier scope wasn’t well received, they had heard from Resiliency and Climate Action committees that the pier would be underwater in the not distant future and face potential storm surges in the next ten years that could demolish it or put it in disrepair requiring a new pier anyway. She asked about processes going forward to modify the pier to prevent damage and when they could move from reactive to proactive approaches.
The speaker suggested taking the opportunity to have the Harbor Waterfront Advisory Committee schedule a meeting with the Climate Action Committee for thorough discussion to identify next steps, noting the Fisherman’s Alliance was not supportive of the new pier project while needing to address rising sea levels and the needs of both the fishing community and recreational fishermen.
Committee member Grishman recalled the situation differently, noting they never brought it to a community vote and there may not be any perfect solution. He pointed out that the Kleinfelder study was underway regarding the entire shoreline and resilience efforts, and the larger pier project had to be paused to understand the overall solution for the fish house, pier, and entire coast before the pier could fit into that comprehensive approach.
Leonard disagreed with Grishman’s characterization, recalling a community meeting with no fewer than fifty people adamantly opposed to the town considering a seven to ten million dollar pier. She felt this opposition was clear but noted they still need to do something and look at a pier, with Kleinfelder playing a role. She expressed concern about affordability given other projects and noted the fish house as a historic building was often overlooked and ignored despite needing attention from a resiliency perspective for the entire area.
Grishman noted that the Kleinfelder study would address these issues, with results expected within a few months and specific solutions for addressing these concerns, followed by significant community engagement. Leonard confirmed this was the updated report using ARPA money and asked about draft status. The speaker confirmed that members of the resilience committee are on the core team working with Kleinfelder.
Phelan agreed with both perspectives, recalling a meeting where the conversation felt like it was being had around the community rather than with it, similar to the Hawthorne situation. Community members who utilize the pier most and other community members didn’t feel the pier represented their desired direction or there was misunderstanding about how they reached that point. She suggested the project was appropriately tabled pending the Kleinfelder conversation and that a more realistic, possibly phased approach was needed. Phelan felt the previous option had too many bells and whistles without clear justification for features like width and turnaround, requiring more collaborative conversation with data to support decisions. She suggested using the Kleinfelder report to determine the timeline and minimum requirements for pier work, and if construction is happening anyway, what reasonable improvements could be made to give it a “glow up” rather than a “blow up.”
Hadley School Schematic Design Documents (Link: 01:19:00 – 01:25:00)
Chair Phelan introduced the discussion and vote to approve and sign the final set of schematic design documents for the redevelopment of the Hadley School at 24 Reddington Street. A speaker began presenting the schematic plans and comments received from various groups.
The speaker reported that the planning board chair had provided comments dealing with lighting, bicycle parking, architectural alignments from stairs, roof massing, and internal access to the lobby for better flow and client experience. The planning board also made recommendations regarding configuration of elevators and bathrooms on the rooftop, as well as consolidation or review and redesign of the lobby and administrative spaces. They specifically discussed dark sky compliant lighting for the parking lot, entrance point, and entire site plan, with lighting being a consistent theme across all comments received.
Comments were also received from the Open Space and Recreation Planning Committee and were voiced at public meetings held to date. Additional comments focused on streetscape and landscaping, historic design integration to ensure buildings would align with the architectural theme of the structure, native species for landscaping, green infrastructure lighting, paving materials to decrease heat island effect, and newly landscaped planting beds with native species.
Committee member Grishman interrupted to clarify where the speaker was referencing in the materials, noting he had followed through the planning board and open space comments but was unsure what section was being discussed next. The speaker indicated they were moving to community comments, but committee members noted they did not have those comments in their packets. Town Administrator Conners clarified that the public meeting comments being referenced were not included in the packet materials.
The speaker continued with resident comments that focused on the need for community space, concerns about lighting, noise impact, rodent and traffic flows within the area, fencing or shrubs for privacy for residents in the rear of the property, relocation of play equipment, parking and traffic flow concerns, and idling of cars. Some residents expressed specific needs for the community space.
The speaker detailed community space requests, including accommodation for groups of up to 25 individuals, space that could work for meetings with arrangements that could be closed off for sound privacy and to not impact hotel guests, provision of tables and chairs by the hotel for community groups, Wi-Fi accommodation, reasonable access to schedule the space up to four times per month, and reasonable advance reserving of the space.
Committee member Leonard asked about the source of the Hadley community space requirements, questioning whether it was a compilation of comments. Conners explained this was based on the community meeting they held and feedback received over time, representing cumulative input from different groups rather than being assigned to any one person. He noted that for the community space specifically, they met with people to understand the intent and exact desire based on language inserted at the end of the article, which consisted of a sentence or two.
Hotel Development Community Space Discussion (Link: 01:25:00 – 01:30:00)
Town Administrator Conners explained that the community space requirements were based on direction from warrant article language, and they wanted to ensure informed conversations. Both Conners and a speaker had met with Dixon earlier that day, which was a productive dialogue that moved beyond previous conversations where the town had been requesting community space without defining what that meant.
Conners reported that Dixon asked what they were looking for and what type of arrangement would work. Dixon’s feedback indicated a commitment to trying to reach an agreement, though he highlighted the need to balance community needs with the business operations. Dixon noted that different vendors might operate the restaurant and ballroom separately from the rest of the property owner, which they need to consider in their planning. The conversation outlined a framework for space accommodating approximately 25 people with advance scheduling, balancing revenue generation with community use.
Conners stated there was a commitment to open and honest dialogue about what could and could not work. Having specific details from interested community members allowed them to move from general conversations to concrete concepts. Dixon indicated he wanted to discuss with his team before responding, and Conners acknowledged they might not get everything requested and might not accept everything offered, but it would provide a starting point for negotiations.
Committee member Leonard expressed concern about the community space concept, noting they had a signed LDA and her understanding was that community space meant anyone from the community could enjoy that section of the hotel, not a dedicated room. She was concerned about putting pressure on the developer and wanted clarity on what community space meant to the board, expressing worry about specific room assignments for various community groups.
Chair Phelan thanked students and families who were present for the school’s open house event. She noted that to the developer’s credit, they did not shut down the conversation or express disinterest, but were willing to engage in healthy dialogue about community space arrangements.
Committee member Fletcher agreed that the goal was not to make unreasonable demands but to define what community space meant and ensure some form would be available for town residents. She emphasized they were not trying to hold the developer’s feet to the fire with specific requirements that would jeopardize the entire deal.
Committee member Grishman found the community space page provided reasonable definition and noted it was not requesting a dedicated room for exclusive town use. Phelan agreed the definition was flexible and noted that even if the request was awkward, it was part of the warrant article and they should ask for what they committed to. She acknowledged that community space definitions span a wide range and they should see where negotiations lead.
Fletcher expressed trust in Conners to handle the negotiations appropriately. Conners credited the community development team for building relationships that enabled these conversations with both parties involved. Phelan mentioned receiving an email from a neighbor and reaching out to that person, though the conversation was interrupted before she could elaborate further.
Municipal Website and Communication Issues (Link: 01:30:00 – 01:39:00)
Committee member Leonard asked if everyone received an email, which Chair Phelan confirmed they all had. Committee member Grishman noted it was an excellent email. Phelan explained she had responded to the individual whose concern was about the driveway pull-out and potential light pollution facing their home. She reported that Mr. Mallory was quick to say they would immediately look at that issue. The entrance currently has one of the exits facing Blaney Street and is not directly facing a residence, with hopes this will continue.
A speaker confirmed they needed to examine the alignment to ensure it would not impact residents on the other side of Blaney and Reddington as well. The speaker and Conners had spoken with Dixon that day, and he indicated they were definitely looking at potential alignment and traffic patterns.
Leonard noted that the letter writer felt there was inadequate notice about the meeting, though they felt the first meeting had adequate notice. She agreed they needed to provide extensive notice and obtain phone numbers or email addresses of everyone in the affected area so residents would expect regular communications.
The speaker acknowledged they needed to determine better ways to post meetings, noting there was confusion about whether meetings were posted as events, meetings, or just on the website sidebar. They confirmed all meetings are consistently posted on the notification board between town hall and the library and on the town website, working with Diane on social media outreach. At the end of Monday night’s meeting, they began collecting email contact information from residents and committed to creating a better mailing list for direct email notifications in addition to existing posting methods.
The speaker wanted to clarify that some attendees thought the Select Board vote would complete the project, but emphasized that per the LDA and process, there would be additional meetings. The Select Board still needed to approve final design approvals and work with regulatory boards. They noted concerns about lighting and design would be addressed through the planning board review process, and the Board of Health would review rodent management plans. The speaker assured residents this was a lengthy process just beginning, with the current vote being a starting point where the developer updated their schematic design from the original proposal.
Committee member Grishman asked if there was a timeline on the town website about the process. The speaker indicated they did not think there was one. Phelan noted that as an exhibit to the LDA, there was a timeline and should be an amended timeline based on the last LDA amendment, though acknowledged that wasn’t what Grishman was referencing.
Grishman suggested posting a timeline with explanations of what elements were firm after schematic approval versus what could still be changed up until final drawings requiring future Select Board approval. He felt examples showing categories of items that could still be altered or commented on months later, along with information about planning board review opportunities, would reduce anxiety and help people understand the process.
Committee member Fletcher noted that website communication had been a constant source of contention for many town residents. She described the website as difficult to navigate and not providing a true picture of all meetings happening, concluding they needed to work on improving how the website informs residents, calling their current performance subpar.
Town Administrator Conners clarified that meetings are posted on the website but the interface is problematic. He explained that from the CivicsPlus platform perspective, “meetings” are government meetings by regulatory, elected, or appointed boards, while “events” are non-governmental. He noted this distinction was pointed out by citizens and residents, explaining that the Hadley schematic design review was categorized as a meeting because it wasn’t before the Select Board or planning board. Conners said the interface organization was meaningful to the platform but not to people searching for information, since meetings and events are the same thing to someone wanting to know what’s happening.
Phelan suggested doing away with the distinction and having everything in one calendar. Conners explained there currently is a calendar with a dropdown for all events, and the question was whether they could make that the default view showing everything without the separate listings. He noted this might not be possible with their current system and, like everything else, would cost money if they needed to make significant changes.
Fletcher emphasized they needed to be cognizant that their failure to inform people about how to find information was leading people to think they were trying to hide things or be deceptive, which wasn’t the case. She noted it was really a matter of not having the right tools or not having used them properly in the past, but they would work on changing that. Conners clarified he mentioned the posting to acknowledge that the town hall team does get information posted, but they need to find better ways through CivicsPlus or alternative solutions.
Fletcher concluded that especially on issues with considerable personal impact for residents, it was better to over-communicate rather than under-communicate. She suggested using not just the website but emails and mail to abutters, preferring that people complain about receiving too much information rather than thinking the town was trying to hide something.
Hotel Development Schematic Design Review and Approval (Link: 01:39:00 – 01:50:00)
Chair Phelan suggested implementing QR codes and mailing lists for all construction-related projects with abutter conversations, similar to what was done with Veterans Crossing, so neighbors would have a place to find information. She noted that the milestone schedule exhibit to the LDA should be pulled forward and placed on the Hadley page as a separate document with actual dates rather than relative timeframes from the end of the due diligence period.
Phelan outlined the timeline, explaining that schematic design commentary was happening currently, followed by construction drawings and specifications submission within six months of the due diligence period end, then 15 months to obtain all permits while securing financing. She emphasized the importance of having conversations with the developer early when seeing issues like egress facing houses, because addressing problems later in the process would be more costly for the developer.
Committee member Grishman expressed concern about voting on the schematics without clear understanding of what comments should be incorporated as conditions of approval versus what could be addressed later. He noted he lacked written documentation of some community comments, including the email about lighting and egress issues.
A speaker clarified they were providing updates from notes taken at public meetings, covering major themes including lighting, noise levels, neighborhood parking concerns, landscaping, loss of privacy, fencing, continued access from Elmwood Road, keeping trees on the Linscot Park side, play equipment relocation, pest control, and community space.
Town Administrator Conners distinguished between conditions of approval versus sharing information with the developer, noting that conditions carry different weight than simply conveying feedback. Committee member Grishman felt conditions were necessary because otherwise the developer could claim they looked at issues but chose not to address them for various reasons.
Committee member Fletcher expressed primary concern about anything affecting residents’ enjoyment of their homes, specifically lighting and noise issues that would warrant conditional approval. She was particularly concerned about the lighting issue affecting residents on Blaney Street. Conners clarified this referred to traffic and circulation design rather than static parking lot lighting.
Phelan noted that issues coming before other boards wouldn’t be ignored by the developer since those boards would reference schematic design comments during their reviews. Fletcher worried that general lighting comments might not address specific impacts on Blaney Street residents, preferring focused attention on particular houses rather than big-picture planning board review.
Phelan agreed some issues needed prioritization but felt it didn’t make sense to condition schematic design approval on planning board review items. Instead, she suggested emphasizing these items would be addressed during planning board review while conditioning approval specifically on egress issues and residential enjoyment concerns.
A speaker explained that the next phase would require construction drawings and specifications, with photometric plans required for planning board review and opportunities for peer review of traffic analysis. The developer was aware of current concerns and would need to address them in final construction drawings.
Committee member Leonard asked about continued leverage in the process, with Phelan confirming this was their first opportunity, not their last. Leonard suggested making every effort to accommodate all mentioned items with emphasis on residential enjoyment. Phelan added community space resolution to the priority items.
Fletcher expressed concern about delays, but Phelan noted they had no ability to delay under the LDA beyond the extension already granted. Phelan called for a motion to have the speaker move forward with responding to the schematic designs. Leonard made the motion, which was seconded.
Phelan clarified the direction to take into account all listed items but prioritize egress, community space, and residential quality of life concerns. Committee member Grishman requested expanding beyond just egress to include lighting impingement and noise affecting surrounding residents. Leonard asked how to express focus on neighbors’ quality of life, with Fletcher suggesting “light pollution” as terminology.
Phelan noted that down lighting was already required by bylaw. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously. Phelan then moved to the next agenda item regarding the fall town meeting warrant for December 1st, making a self-deprecating comment about their communication challenges.
Fall Town Meeting Warrant Review (Link: 01:50:00 – 02:21:00)
Chair Phelan confirmed communication with the moderator and noted that packages would go out with the town meeting posted on the calendar. She clarified that December 1st would be the annual Fall Town Meeting, which is technically a special town meeting. Town Administrator Conners indicated Patrick had prepared the warrant materials.
Patrick began reviewing Article 1, which covers approval of bills from prior fiscal years. He noted several new bills had been added since the last review, appearing at the bottom of the table. Committee member Leonard questioned why these weren’t on purchase orders, particularly noting registry of deeds and fire equipment items. Patrick explained that purchase orders should have been in place before goods were ordered, but these were exceptions where bills were received after the fiscal year end without anticipated purchase orders. Committee member Fletcher asked about July 4th trophies listed under the select board, with Patrick clarifying these were given to the former town accountant for payment but weren’t processed.
The board discussed sponsorship of articles, with Leonard suggesting the Finance Committee should sponsor financial articles. Conners clarified that the board was voting on the warrant structure that evening, not individual article positions, which would be determined after Finance Committee review. Each article noted that both the select board and finance committee would report at town meeting since neither had voted on positions yet.
Article 2 addressed amending appropriation for fiscal 2026 operating budget, involving two transfers within the budget to fund interim town accountant consulting services and cover property casualty premiums above budget estimates, with workers compensation as the funding source since it came below estimates. The bottom line remained unchanged at zero. Leonard questioned why they were making adjustments now rather than at year-end, with Patrick explaining it was more pertinent to address known issues immediately.
Article 3 was a placeholder for collective bargaining agreement costs. Conners indicated he did not anticipate any settled CBAs by the meeting date but preferred keeping the article to withdraw or postpone indefinitely if needed. Article 4 addressed transferring free cash for homeless and foster care transportation costs, a recurring annual article based on state funding the school department receives for these expenses.
Articles 5 and 6 were related items. Article 5 would rescind a $400,000 appropriation from free cash made at the May town meeting for the special education reserve fund, brought forward by school administration because state statute limits how much can be in that fund. The transfer combined with year-end balance would exceed the limit. Article 6 would transfer $94,000 of unexpended FY25 school budget funds into the special education reserve, keeping the balance compliant with state law while maintaining adequate funding per the MOA between town administrator and superintendent.
Leonard expressed confusion about the special education reserve fund transactions and mentioned concerns about a $574,000 “cushion” from unused Nahant tuition funds that the school committee had discussed, as well as questions about the electricity fund. She felt these required broader conversations while keeping the current articles in the warrant.
Article 7 was the recurring transfer of free cash to adjust the tax rate, typically considered at fall town meeting using one-time funds to reduce the tax rate. This would be discussed at the next meeting, with Patrick noting that tax classification hearing and free cash decisions could be made at separate meetings if needed. Committee member Grishman confirmed this would involve approximately one million dollars as in previous years.
Article 8 involved Conservation Commission requesting transfer of free cash to their conservation fund. The commission wanted to move interest earned on notice of intent filing fees from the general fund to a conservation fund for conservation purposes rather than administrative wetlands protection activities. Committee members expressed concern about setting precedent for other committees wanting similar arrangements.
Tony from the Conservation Commission explained there were three different conservation funds, with the special conservation fund being established by state law under the Wetlands Protection Act for non-administrative conservation purposes. Patrick clarified that a previous warrant article years ago was intended to accomplish this but was written incorrectly, resulting in money going to the operating budget and eventually back to free cash rather than the intended special fund.
After discussion about the complexity and precedent concerns, Conners suggested pushing this article to spring town meeting to allow time to work with KP Law and understand the original warrant article intent and proper language. The Conservation Commission agreed to provide a summary of their three different funds and work with staff on proper language for the spring.
Article 9 addressed library side entrance improvements. Conners explained this was for the children’s entrance that had been discussed previously, with the library pursuing a $250,000 reimbursement grant. The article requested $350,000 total, with $250,000 to be reimbursed if the grant is awarded. If no grant is awarded, the project would not proceed. The work would be combined with front entrance work already underway for efficiency. Leonard supported adding this capital project to the special town meeting given the potential savings and improved accessibility.
Article 10 covered appropriation for a park grant that had been awarded to replace safety surfacing at Abbott Park as phase two improvements. The grant provided $100,000 with the remaining $105,810 coming from town funds, but included language that no funds would be expended if the grant were not awarded. The work would include safety surfacing replacement, street furniture, additional trees, better gates, and minor landscaping, with the existing play equipment remaining in good condition.
Conners presented a draft article for Hawthorne Restaurant authorization, noting they would need two separate articles – one for occupancy and use up to 36 months, and another for storage/license arrangements. He suggested scheduling a remote meeting early the following week to finalize language with KP Law and the Athanas family attorney before closing the warrant. The board confirmed these articles would be sponsored by the select board rather than the Finance Committee.
Select Board Time and Community Updates (Link: 02:21:00 – 02:41:00)
Chair Phelan announced they would not vote to close the warrant due to remaining matters and moved to the consent agenda. She reported that the Poet Laureate Selection Committee would be seated with all three applicants who applied, thanks to Diane’s work gathering applications. The committee would work with Jonathan at the library to facilitate an annual Poet Laureate of Swampscott. The board approved the consent agenda unanimously.
Phelan noted she would serve as the select board representative on the Poet Laureate committee and mentioned there was still a school representative vacancy that needed to be filled. She announced that the first financial mini-summit originally scheduled for the following day was moved to November 13th due to CIC scheduling issues. The meeting would be a joint session with Capital, Select Board, School Committee, and Finance Committee, limited to two hours with a concise agenda.
Phelan explained her philosophy for the financial summits, suggesting they maintain a running future items list for topics not pertinent to the current agenda and avoid going down rabbit holes given the time constraints and difficulty scheduling the large group. She requested that colleagues send her topics for future discussion to coordinate with the tri-chair.
Town Administrator Conners outlined the staff responsibilities for the capital meeting, noting they would present on capital projects above $100,000 as a starting point. Ryan would provide an overview of the 10-year plan goal, discussing their process of looking back at what worked well and what could be improved, and how the 10-year plan helps socialize future projects to better inform voters on near-term capital decisions.
Committee member Grishman asked about multi-year revenue and expense projections. Committee member Leonard noted revenue projections were due November 15th per charter, with Conners clarifying that revenue comes first and expenses follow in December. Conners explained that revenue and expense projections inform Select Board priorities to the finance team, and there’s a chicken-and-egg relationship between financial policies and projections since policies determine how projections are calculated.
Phelan indicated the cadence of these joint meetings would eventually be quarterly once established, but might be more frequent initially to address lagging topics. Grishman suggested they might need meetings in November, December, and January leading up to the March 1st budget deadline.
Committee member Leonard asked about CPA timing. Grishman reported that Diane was gathering committee members who had all been appointed and were being seated, with support from the Community Preservation Coalition. The committee would need to move quickly since established committees were already recommending projects for May town meeting. Grishman noted they would be required to make recommendations for the minimum 10% in each domain of housing, historic preservation, and open space, potentially putting around $750,000 on the table for May.
Committee member Fletcher praised Conners and his team for their proactive work on the Hawthorne situation, noting the research and preparation that went into providing options. She also commended the Recreation Commission meeting from the previous night, expressing amazement at the number of programs and plans Charlotte was creating, including praise for the Italian festival where food lines never slowed down.
Committee member Leonard thanked Nathan Kent and Nate Beisheim for hosting the meeting that evening. She reminded the board about the rodenticide bylaw request, stating she wasn’t supportive of including it in the special town meeting but wanted it on the fall warrant to protect birds of prey from poisoned mice. She preferred board sponsorship over a citizen petition, calling it common sense.
Leonard announced the pumpkin toss weekend event and raised concerns as liaison to the retirement committee about ongoing coding issues where police department members had paid into retirement for portions that shouldn’t count, or received money they shouldn’t have. She noted this was a recurring problem affecting town employees who had to either give back or come up with large sums of money, requesting help to resolve the systemic issue.
Phelan provided details about the pumpkin toss on Sunday, November 9th from 10 to 1 at Phillips Park, put on by SWAC Solid Waste Advisory, noting pumpkins must be free from decorations for composting. She acknowledged community mobilization around SNAP benefit losses, praising efforts from PTOs, Anchor Food Pantry, and businesses donating to support neighbors, noting that 1,000 families in Swampscott rely on SNAP benefits.
Fletcher mentioned her daughter’s participation in Becky Gruthius’s Goodwill Gang club conducting a food drive for Anchor Food Pantry, praising the teacher for helping elementary students understand community giving. Leonard noted that town hall employees collect items with Diane O’Brien picking them up for Anchor, and thanked the Athanas family for hosting lunch that day. Phelan asked about the restaurant’s last day of operation but Conners indicated that wasn’t part of their current discussions. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote.
All About Town provides all information in a good faith effort to improve community engagement and awareness. However, text is generated by artificial intelligence, and we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information provided herein. Use of the site and reliance on any information on the site is solely at each individual’s own risk.