See AI Disclaimer at Bottom
Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Pledge of Allegiance (Link: 00:01:00 – 00:02:00)
A speaker opened the meeting on November 19th, noting that the session was being recorded. The speaker led the Pledge of Allegiance, with another speaker joining in to complete the recitation. Following the pledge, the speaker announced that the meeting would begin with the town administrator’s report.
Town Administrator Report (Link: 00:02:00 – 00:08:00)
Nicholas Conners, Town Administrator, delivered his report beginning with grant news. The town was awarded a $750,000 grant to support infrastructure relocation work in preparation for the Pine Street project. Conners reported that preparations for town meeting continue, with the warrant mailed out the previous Thursday, and noted he would be meeting with FINCOM the following evening to answer questions.
Conners discussed the capital program, stating that departmental capital requests are being reviewed and that future presentations would be made to the board. He mentioned working closely with Ryan Hale and the CIC as a follow-up to the Capital Planning meeting, praising both staff presentations and board questions while acknowledging opportunities for improvement in future quarterly discussions.
In departmental updates, Conners highlighted the DPW team’s work on the lacks wall installation and preparations at Fisherman’s Beach for winter. He announced that 10 additional boat storage spots would be available at Phillips for the winter, with those next on the lottery list to be notified in order. He indicated that 20 total spots would be available in future years and mentioned plans for a market survey of storage fees to ensure they remain affordable and competitive, though no changes would occur immediately.
Conners reported that the senior center has been busy, participating in a video highlighting their intergenerational program with the high school and hosting a successful veterans breakfast. He noted that the recreation department, under Charlotte’s leadership, began programming at the Clark space and that the FBI had been using the facility for training, transforming what was previously underutilized space.
Conners promoted the indoor Thanksgiving farmers market scheduled for Sunday at the high school from 10 to 1, and mentioned the holiday parade and marketplace planned for December 13th at town hall. On the HR front, he reported that qualified candidates for both finance director and town clerk positions had begun the interview process with phone screens and first rounds scheduled.
Conners presented results from the salary survey for the assessor position, indicating the town was 22 to 25 percent behind market rates compared to peer and super-peer communities. He asked whether the board wanted a detailed presentation or if he could work with HR to reclassify the position and ensure it was built into future budgets.
A committee member responded that they recalled supporting a full-time assessor with market rate adjustment before Conners’ tenure. Conners acknowledged this was before his time and expressed appreciation for the guidance, stating he would move forward with the adjustment. Another committee member asked to ensure comparisons were equal regarding work hours, questioning whether they were comparing 34-hour work weeks to 40-hour work weeks. Conners replied he had assumed all positions were 37 hours as that was standard in most towns he had worked with, and agreed to double-check. He noted that Linfield was excluded from the survey because their assessor serves as chief assessor in three communities and is compensated accordingly. The chair then moved to the next agenda item, public comment.
Public Comment (Link: 00:08:00 – 00:13:00)
Mike Kelleher of Pine Hill Road, Swampscott, addressed the board expressing his interest in submitting an RFP for the Hawthorne property. Kelleher stated he watched the previous meeting and hoped to bring forward a concept that would turn the space into a community gem for residents and visitors to enjoy while the town works through long-term planning and funding. He proposed transforming the waterfront location into a vibrant destination offering food, entertainment, family-friendly events, concerts, and flexible community space.
Kelleher addressed the Hawthorne Reuse Committee’s recommendation to raise the building immediately, calling such action premature. He argued that replacing the building with a fenced-off crater at the town’s entrance for potentially three years or more would be shortsighted and create unnecessary blight on one of the most visible pieces of property. He advocated for short-term activation as a smart and responsible path that would keep the property vibrant instead of dormant, allow the town breathing room to thoughtfully plan and fund a permanent vision, and provide residents and visitors with a positive, engaging waterfront experience rather than a shuttered lot.
Joe Dulet of Elmwood Road, Swampscott, spoke as director of the Blue Big Band, Swampscott’s Community Jazz Orchestra and a program of the Senior Center. He announced their holiday concert featuring Duke Ellington’s Nutcracker Suite on December 14th at 2pm. Dulet noted the band has 14 community members and described it as a fantastic one-hour program. Tickets are $10 with free admission for youth and seniors, and more information is available at bluebigband.com.
A speaker identified as Mr. Demento addressed the Hawthorne by the Sea situation, stating the issue has continued for three years and expressing concern about a potential six-year process. He urged the board to greatly accelerate the process and expressed fear about rental arrangements, noting the town has received only $2,000 per month for three years from the restaurant operation. He emphasized the town cannot afford delays given the tax situation and anticipated tax increases, as well as expected loss of cap money due to budget constraints. He urged the board not to postpone action any longer, referencing previous study committees and stating a recommendation is now before them. The chair then moved to new and old business.
Public Hearing for Liquor License Transfer (Link: 00:13:00 – 00:28:00)
Katie Phelan, Chair, opened a public hearing to consider the approval of the transfer of ownership of an existing section 15 off-premises all alcohol license from Kasabal LLC at 646 Humphrey Street, Unit D, Swampscott to Gant Corporation. The motion was made and seconded, with Douglas Thompson participating remotely requiring roll call votes.
Alex Bourgeois from Demakis Law Office in Lynn represented the applicant, accompanied by Nitibin J. Patel, the proposed manager of record who is 35% shareholder, president and treasurer of the corporation, and Sameer Kumar Patel, who is 65% shareholder and secretary and director. Bourgeois explained that the applicant is purchasing all assets including the liquor license of Kasabal LLC doing business as Swampscott Liquors and plans to continue operating the business with the same name, location, and products.
The applicant requested a change in permitted hours from the current Monday through Saturday 9am to 10pm and Sundays 10am to 6pm, to the full hours permitted by the ABCC: Monday through Saturday 8am to 11pm and Sundays 10am to 11pm. Bourgeois noted that Nitibin Patel has experience working in this type of store since 2021, has a valid work permit, no violations, is familiar with ID scanners and laws, and is tip certified. Sameer Kumar Patel successfully runs another liquor store in Newburyport and is also familiar with ID laws and scanners.
Mary Ellen Fletcher asked if this was the recently opened store, which was confirmed. Phelan inquired about any issues with the current license holder, and a speaker confirmed there were no issues or outstanding fees or debts. A committee member mentioned the only issues were requests to change excessive signage including neon signs and signs covering windows and the ice cooler, but these were addressed when brought up.
Fletcher expressed concern about extending hours, noting that residents had previously commented against this and questioned whether residents were sent letters about the change in ownership. Phelan confirmed that an ad was published in the local paper 10 days before the hearing as required by law. A committee member expressed pause about being open until 11pm, noting nothing else in Swampscott stays open that late, and questioned the quick change in manager of record.
A speaker from the audience came to the microphone explaining they had a family situation with elderly parents requiring care, which necessitated stepping away from the business. Bourgeois clarified that the hours wouldn’t change drastically, with Monday through Saturday opening one hour earlier and closing one hour later, and Sundays having a few extra hours, noting the applicants wanted flexibility for holidays and deliveries.
Fletcher stated she would approve the transfer without the change in hours, preferring to get through a year before readdressing hours. Mr. Demento spoke during public comment, expressing no issue with the transfer but concern that neighbors who were previously vocal about hours weren’t present. He questioned whether proper notification procedures were followed and suggested waiting to ensure neighbors were properly notified before approving hour changes.
Thompson, participating remotely, agreed with concerns about notification, noting the liquor store is situated in a neighborhood and residents should be aware of changes, even if only newspaper notification is legally required. Phelan agreed they could table the hours piece and approve the transfer, noting the applicants could request hour changes later or upon renewal.
Fletcher made a motion to approve the transfer of ownership and change of manager while tabling the hours request. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously with roll call votes. Phelan explained the next step would be forwarding to the ABCC and that hours could be considered at another time. The public hearing was then closed.
A committee member asked Conners to research hours for other liquor stores in town for when the applicants return. Discussion followed about liquor license renewals being scheduled for December 3rd and the need for holiday hour adjustments for Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve that are typically made for restaurants with liquor licenses.
Financial Forecasts and Budget Discussion (Link: 00:28:00 – 00:54:00)
Conners began the financial forecast presentation, acknowledging they were four days late but ahead of previous years’ schedules. He explained this was an initial snapshot based on assumptions and expectations, with plans to return to the board in December for feedback on goals, priorities, and objectives to guide deeper departmental discussions.
Conners outlined the financial policies governing the projections, emphasizing conservative revenue planning including not exceeding 90% of prior year local receipts, not building budgets around grant revenue, and focusing on 2% property tax increases plus $425,000 in new growth despite the town’s five-year average exceeding that amount. He presented slides showing the maximum allowable levy under Proposition 2½ versus their more conservative 2% plus new growth projection approach.
For state aid, Conners projected flat funding due to state-level hiring freezes and separation incentives, as well as uncertainty at the federal level. He noted the legislature typically wouldn’t act until April, but they would have better information by February and March budget discussions.
Technical difficulties arose with slide sharing for remote participants, which was resolved. Conners explained local receipts projections were conservative, using 85-90% of prior year budgets or historic actuals averaged over three to five years, noting the building department was performing well but they wouldn’t build the budget around higher-than-average performance.
Conners presented estimated expenditures, cautioning this was a first pass without guidance on level service versus level funding versus priorities. The projections included salary reserves in general government due to open contract negotiations and salaries for town hall resources in finance, assessing, and town clerk positions previously discussed. He noted open contracts, an expiring solid waste contract, and uncertain healthcare costs as significant variables.
A committee member noted the projected deficit of $2.3 million. Conners confirmed this figure and highlighted that healthcare costs could be too optimistic, open contracts across public safety and town hall remained unresolved, and solid waste collection costs could increase up to 8% compared to the traditional 3-5% range. He mentioned the solid waste advisory committee was conducting a deep dive on options, including potentially extending the current contract for one year with minimal increases.
Thompson asked whether Conners was taking a conservative approach on both revenue and expense sides. Conners clarified that revenue projections were conservative, but expense projections were realistic rather than conservative, noting some significant cost drivers beyond their control, particularly the three major variables he had mentioned.
Discussion followed about culture and recreation budget categories, with Patrick clarifying this included library department salary and expenses, lifeguard salaries, and certain recreation department expenditures outside the revolving account such as Fourth of July and community events funded through the general fund.
Fletcher asked about investment income projections, which Conners and Patrick explained reflected market and interest rate impacts. Fletcher also inquired about miscellaneous non-recurring revenue, with Patrick explaining that fiscal year 2025 included $1 million from National Grid energy incentives related to the new school, though such revenues weren’t assumed in forecasting.
Fletcher recalled approximately $2.5 million in staggered National Grid payments, with additional money contingent on reinvestment in infrastructure like solar projects. She noted some funds were designated for school debt while others could be used for infrastructure improvements to maintain energy efficiency incentives. Patrick agreed to follow up with Max on pending energy incentives.
Fletcher requested a debt service roll-off table, with Patrick confirming the debt service numbers were solid based on the five-year plan presented to town meeting, though they would update as the capital plan progressed.
Conners outlined the budget timeline, planning to work with department heads in December and January while seeking board feedback at the last December meeting on goals, priorities, and objectives. He scheduled a FINCOM meeting and noted CIC would intensify efforts soon. The preliminary budget would be ready by end of January, with the school department completing their work in February, and multiple board presentations planned throughout the process.
Fletcher confirmed the projections were based on 2% rather than 2.5% increases, which Conners verified as consistent with existing financial policies. Phelan asked about involving department heads in budget discussions, referencing previous years’ practices and last year’s budget process challenges.
Conners expressed willingness to bring department heads before the board in January after initial internal discussions, contingent on receiving feedback from the board on direction such as level service versus level funding approaches. He offered to work with board members individually to ensure appropriate department representation beyond just police, fire, and DPW.
A committee member supported the collaborative approach, emphasizing the value of hearing directly from department heads about priorities, critical needs, and nice-to-have items. Conners agreed this would provide better context than just reviewing budget line items and would ensure department heads could answer questions directly rather than leaving responses to finance staff.
Phelan noted the difficulty of providing blanket direction like level funding when exceptions would inevitably arise, supporting the collaborative approach to address issues before reaching an irreversible point. Conners agreed, stating his goal for December feedback was to align initial internal discussions with board direction while recognizing not every department would fit exactly within single guardrails.
Joint Meeting with Board of Assessors on Tax Classification (Link: 00:54:00 – 01:42:00)
Thompson noted that the next agenda item would add further context to the budget discussion in terms of tax rate increases. Phelan moved to the joint meeting with the Board of Assessors regarding DOR filings related to the fiscal year 2026 classification hearing. The Board of Assessors was waiting for Charlie to arrive from a housing authority meeting before calling their meeting to order.
Fletcher asked whether the Board of Assessors had reviewed the numbers being presented. A Board of Assessors member confirmed they had just received them that day from Patriot Property. Fletcher expressed concern about this pattern, noting that every year there seems to be an issue with Patriot Property delivering information in a timely manner, and that the Select Board was being shown numbers before the Board of Assessors had even seen them.
Paul, the assessor, explained that while Patriot Property bore some responsibility for delays, he had taken on more work than anticipated this year, trying to review properties that took longer than expected. He stated that moving forward to next year, there would be a different approach in how he proceeds and works with Patriot Properties. When asked to elaborate on the process, Paul explained that after starting mid-year last year and working through exemptions and abatement season, he identified issues in two specific neighborhoods that needed review – the oceanfront neighborhoods.
Paul described conducting individual reviews of each oceanfront property, examining flyovers, MLS listings, building permits, deeds, and plans. He found issues that needed correction and noted that oceanfront neighborhoods are the most complicated in Swampscott. He acknowledged that with only 15 hours per week, the work was challenging and that Swampscott is a very complex town to assess. Paul indicated there would be a different format moving forward and noted that some things had changed with the Department of Revenue since his retirement five years ago.
Fletcher asked about the number of neighborhoods in Swampscott. Paul estimated approximately 20 single-family neighborhoods. When Fletcher expressed concern about inequity – whether adjusting two neighborhoods while leaving 18 others unadjusted would benefit those two at the expense of others – Paul explained that the two oceanfront neighborhoods consisted of 140 homes, and his next target would be the ocean view neighborhood with under 200 homes. He emphasized that this problem had existed for a long time, exacerbated by assessor turnover every year or so, and that achieving fairness and equity requires a process that would take three to five years even working full-time.
A committee member acknowledged Paul’s difficult situation, noting he was understaffed and working only 15 hours per week, and appreciated his systematic approach to progressively addressing neighborhoods. Paul confirmed his recommendation for a full-time assessor, noting there had been six assessors in 10 years and six different people in two years, with periods of having no one in the position.
Paul explained that through the sales review process, changes had been made throughout town, with some neighborhood land values increasing. He and Patriot had reviewed building style tables, noting some old styles were calculated at higher costs per square foot than colonials, antiques, or contemporaries, which are prevalent in Swampscott. A committee member emphasized the difficulty of filling the assessor position and the mountain of work involved, thanking Paul for his diligence.
When asked about timeline improvements with a full-time assessor, Paul maintained his estimate of three to five years, drawing from his 25-year experience in Westfield where he had a full-time staff including an assistant assessor and three administrative people. He explained that even with full staffing, it took three years to review each neighborhood, land values, building grades, and cost tables. Paul noted that single-family neighborhoods have different characteristics even within the same area, while condos create their own neighborhoods and provide immediate market feedback through sales.
Paul described sending impact letters to all oceanfront property owners informing them of the review process and potential value changes. He noted that through abatement reviews and property inspections, he works to establish correct base values before analyzing sales to determine adjustments. Some condos had decreased in value while others increased or stayed the same, with similar variations in single-family homes across different neighborhoods.
Thompson asked Paul to explain in simple terms what led him to choose certain neighborhoods for review. Paul explained that complaints from property owners about inequities within neighborhoods prompted his comprehensive approach. Rather than just examining individual properties and a few neighbors, he decided to review entire neighborhoods. One example involved a property owner whose home was graded and valued higher than neighbors with newer construction of similar quality but lower values. Paul noted that reviewing complicated neighborhoods required extensive time, sometimes two to three hours per property.
Thompson inquired whether Paul could identify over or under-assessed neighborhoods before detailed evaluation. Paul explained that certain property characteristics signal potential problems, leading him to run reports to identify other properties that might be similarly affected. He anticipated that as he moves inward from affluent oceanfront areas toward town center and the Lynn line, neighborhoods would become easier to evaluate due to less variation in home types and grades.
Fletcher asked about building permit processes and occupancy requirements. Paul explained that building inspectors issue occupancy permits, and described a system he had implemented in Westfield where the assessor’s office became part of the occupancy permit sign-off process. This required builders and homeowners to have assessor inspections before receiving occupancy permits, allowing accurate assessment of renovations and new construction. Paul noted that getting access to homes after construction completion is nearly impossible, making this process valuable for accurate assessments.
Fletcher asked about software integration between the building inspector and assessor’s office. Paul explained he has access to OpenGov but information doesn’t automatically transfer to his office. He runs reports for Patriot to enter permit information and reviews building, plumbing, and electrical permits. When reviewing neighborhoods, he examines all available permits and archived information, saving building plans and comparing them to property sketches, making alterations or complete re-sketches when necessary.
Paul began his presentation with proposed numbers that would be submitted to the Department of Revenue after board signatures and approval. The total taxable value in town exceeded $5 billion, representing an increase above 4% from fiscal year 2025. This increase reflected reviews of all neighborhoods, single families, and condos.
For new growth, Paul reported $41 million in growth value initially, but after accounting for abatements, the proposed figure was approximately $38 million, translating to about $492,000 in growth revenue if approved and certified. This represented a 22% increase from the previous year’s growth revenue of around $400,000. New growth includes any property changes now being assessed that weren’t previously assessed, based on building permits, MLS data, and other property information.
Using an estimated levy of $65 million against $5 billion in taxable property value, Paul calculated a proposed single tax rate of $13.01. Assuming the board would continue the historical practice of shifting to the maximum allowable for commercial, industrial, and personal property with the minimum residential factor, the residential rate would be approximately $12.33, an increase from the previous year’s $11.47. The commercial rate was projected at $22.88, up from approximately $21.70.
Paul calculated that the average assessed single-family home value was $951,000, meaning the average single-family property would see an annual tax increase of approximately $1,100, from $10,618 last year to a projected $11,730. He noted that as the levy changes, taxes would adjust accordingly. The Community Preservation Act, being new this year, would add an additional surcharge separate from the overlay, with the town implementing a $100,000 exemption and 1.5% rate.
Thompson asked about the Community Preservation Act average cost, with estimates of $100-150, and Fletcher noted increases in water and sewer rates as well. Thompson inquired about the 10.5% tax increase compared to prior years. Patrick indicated he didn’t have solid historical comparisons readily available but noted decent increases in recent years due to property value trends, offering to provide data before the classification hearing.
Thompson questioned why tax increases reached 10.5% when single-family home values increased only 3%. Paul confirmed this was based on the levy, with the current tax levy estimated at 12% over the previous year. A committee member asked about the timeline for hiring a full-time assessor, with Conners confirming they would repost the position at a new salary based on the completed salary survey.
Paul outlined next steps, explaining that the Board of Assessors must first vote and submit the LA4 value report and LA13 growth report to the Department of Revenue. After approval, the Select Board would hold a classification hearing to vote on final numbers, which wouldn’t occur until after the special town meeting. Bills must be sent by December 31st, with last year’s submission around December 12th and a few days needed for approval.
Discussion followed about timing, with town meeting scheduled for December 1st or 2nd, and a Select Board meeting on December 3rd. Conners suggested adding an update to the December 1st agenda and placing a placeholder on December 3rd, with the possibility of a remote meeting on December 10th if needed to avoid waiting until December 17th. Paul indicated he could likely complete the assessor’s work within a week of board approval.
Fletcher asked about town-wide revaluations, with Paul confirming they occur annually with recertification every five years, noting that fiscal year 2027 might be a recertification year. Fletcher inquired about return on investment if the entire town were balanced like the two reviewed neighborhoods. Paul explained that better control, accounting, and capturing new growth would benefit the town, emphasizing the importance of consistency and uniformity in assessments.
A Board of Assessors member provided additional perspective on Fletcher’s question, explaining two sides of the benefit: the tax rate the town collects and the taxpayer benefit. He described how properly valued properties at full market value allow for lower tax rates while maintaining town revenue, giving homeowners equity in higher-valued homes with lower tax rates rather than lower-valued homes with higher tax rates.
Phelan asked about facilitating more equitable assessments faster, questioning whether consultants could help accelerate the process and what the return on investment would be. Conners mentioned that the Board of Assessors had sent a letter suggesting a full-time assessor with Paul staying on temporarily to help train the new person and develop a comprehensive plan, noting concern about past penny-wise approaches.
Paul emphasized that equitable valuations depend on details and thorough property analysis, noting that with better information across town, assessments become more equitable as everyone approaches market value. He explained that assessors don’t control the levy but focus on valuation, with the formula being value times tax rate equals tax. The meeting concluded with thanks to Paul and the Board of Assessors, with their meeting needing to be adjourned separately.
Hawthorne Reuse Advisory Committee Presentation (Link: 01:42:00 – 02:05:00)
Phelan introduced the presentation and discussion of the Hawthorne Reuse Advisory Committee recommendation, with Brian Watson, Chairman of the committee, and another member Tara present. Watson requested to give a 15-minute presentation without interruption before taking questions, though Phelan noted they might need to stop for clarity.
Watson explained that the Hawthorne Reuse Advisory Committee consisted of 12 appointed diverse members who held their first meeting on March 18th and had 16 additional meetings. He outlined their mission statement, which included conducting thorough site analysis, defining clear goals and criteria for evaluation, developing and analyzing various site plans, and ultimately achieving consensus among the committee, Select Board, and town around a comprehensive plan.
Watson described the committee’s extensive educational process, noting they had filled gaps from the HDR process by learning how a town should select a development plan. The committee studied the Humphrey Street context and site history prior to 1967 when the Hawthorne building didn’t exist, visited the site to understand its size and scale, and even chalk-marked the parking lot to visualize different site plans. They drew and discussed approximately 20 site plans for the single lot and 10 plans for a potential double lot scenario.
The committee examined various aspects including who would build different portions of each plan, possibilities for selling or leasing portions of the lot, and financial implications of different plans. Watson emphasized their awareness of financial considerations throughout the process. They developed comprehensive criteria for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each plan, striving for objective deliberation.
Watson presented the evaluation criteria, displayed in appendix slides, which included economic and financial concerns as the primary category, followed by environmental considerations, building and park arrangements, parking factors, vistas, alignment with Humphrey Street overlay district goals, social considerations, existing building assessment, building uses, feasibility and timing, and permitting and zoning requirements.
Watson explained that these criteria served as a test or filter for each proposal, ensuring fairness and providing a shared framework for evaluation by the committee, Select Board, town meeting, or the entire town. After weighing all considerations, the committee concluded that any site development should include a mixed-use plan with five ingredients: green space, public shoreline access and walkway, buildings, parking, and revenue generation, all blended into a coherent and attractive plan.
The committee unanimously recommended demolishing the Hawthorne building, with only one member being indecisive while the rest were unanimous. Watson presented their reasoning, stating that retaining the building would preclude substantial green area and coastline access, constituted poor town planning for such a prime downtown location, and that the building was not architecturally noteworthy while requiring costly repairs.
Watson argued that keeping the existing building violated the Humphrey Street overlay district intentions and created environmental problems with the one-acre parking lot serving as a heat island. He emphasized that their proposed alternatives could outperform the existing restaurant financially, environmentally, and in terms of attractiveness and downtown character.
The committee also unanimously opposed leasing the building to another operator for one to three years, considering it the financially weakest option and a managerial burden that would complicate the development process. Watson noted this outcome would be least expected by townspeople, citing input from 550 people where only 10-12 supported keeping the restaurant while others preferred different solutions.
A committee member questioned the mechanism for hearing from 550 people. Watson explained they held two public forums and solicited written responses through questionnaires, receiving approximately 450 written responses and nearly 100 verbal comments at the forums. He noted that a slight majority preferred mixed-use plans while almost half preferred all-park plans, with three similar conceptual plans showing 25,000-35,000 square feet of buildings toward the front and the back half as parkland.
Watson presented site plan G1, the single-lot recommendation for scenarios where the town doesn’t purchase the church parking lot. The plan featured buildings arranged around a courtyard open to the street, with 25,000-35,000 square feet of building space, a 50-foot-wide courtyard, and the back 50% as parkland. The design included about 30 parking spaces and potential second or third-floor connections between buildings above eye level.
The committee envisioned first floors as retail, shops, cafes, and restaurants to generate activity in the courtyard, with upper floors to be determined later. Watson explained the town wouldn’t build these structures but would work with developers who would buy or lease the front portion of the lot. He suggested that demolition costs could be incorporated into the development plan, with developers handling the $800,000 demolition as part of their project, though this would result in lower land sale prices or lease payments.
Phelan questioned the likelihood of developer interest if residential use was restricted, noting the public’s immediate call for deed restrictions against residential use when the property was originally obtained. Watson acknowledged that realistically, few developers would respond to an RFP that completely prohibited residential use, calling such a restriction unrealistic and potentially resulting in no developer responses.
Watson noted the committee was divided on residential use but argued that architecturally and for the town’s benefit, second and third floors could be apartments or condos. He addressed public concerns about large-scale developments like Concordia or Westcott, explaining that proper RFP language could control square footage and limit units to eight or ten apartments or condos, avoiding the scale that residents feared.
Phelan acknowledged Watson’s points but emphasized that the town’s response upon purchasing the property was clear that residential should not be considered, as the lot was purchased for the community at large rather than for wealthy individuals to purchase apartments or condos there.
Hawthorne Review Committee Report Presentation and Discussion (Link: 02:05:00 – 02:45:00)
Watson responded to Phelan’s point about residential restrictions by noting that the 550 responses his committee received did not reflect opposition to residential use, contrasting this with concerns expressed three years ago when the land was purchased. Thompson interjected that residents likely weren’t aware residential was being considered, with Fletcher adding that it wasn’t explicitly presented as an option during the committee’s public outreach.
Fletcher asked about parking capacity, with Watson confirming 28-30 spaces for 25,000 square feet of total building space across both structures. When Fletcher questioned how 30 parking spaces could support that amount of retail, Watson acknowledged he would prefer more parking but noted that every plan they examined faced similar parking constraints while trying to achieve multiple goals simultaneously.
A committee member asked about the split between commercial and green space, with Watson confirming it was approximately 52% commercial in front and 48% green space, noting this division occurred organically rather than being predetermined. When asked about current parking capacity, Watson confirmed the existing lot has about 110 spaces, meaning their plan would reduce parking to 30 spaces while potentially including 10-12 residential units sharing that parking.
Watson explained that if residential units were included, the committee would assign only one parking space per apartment due to mathematical constraints. When Phelan noted the plan wasn’t feasible without residential, Watson suggested office space as an alternative but acknowledged that would also require parking.
Watson presented the double lot option (plan K1), which followed the same principles as the single lot plan but expanded, featuring a central courtyard community space and approximately 50 total parking spaces. He noted these plans could be modified by reducing building square footage to better align with available parking, emphasizing the plans were meant to show direction and concept rather than being set in stone.
Phelan clarified that the town was not currently pursuing purchase of the full church lot but rather approximately half through a letter of intent. Watson noted his committee had not taken a position on whether the town should purchase any portion of the church lot due to time constraints, though he acknowledged the plans depended on this decision.
Phelan emphasized that Watson’s committee had recommended ingredients or a recipe rather than fixed specifications, allowing flexibility in implementation whether for one, one-and-a-half, or two lots. Watson agreed, noting the fixed element was grouping buildings toward Humphrey Street with green space toward the coastline to create retail synergy and logical site organization.
Watson explained that his committee had only two meetings to discuss the Select Board’s recent activities regarding potential restaurant leasing, as the Athanas family’s departure became known publicly. He expressed alarm at the town taking on complex arrangements like buying additional lots and managing restaurant operations, arguing the town lacked the managerial capacity for such property management and development activities.
Thompson questioned whether Watson’s recommendation to tear down the restaurant wasn’t equally complex for a municipality. Watson clarified they were not recommending immediate demolition but rather an RFP process where developers would handle demolition as part of their development proposal, similar to processes used by other municipalities like Shrewsbury.
Watson explained that under their approach, no demolition would occur until a developer was selected through the RFP process and agreements were finalized, with the developer bearing demolition costs rather than the town. He noted this would result in lower land sale prices or lease payments to compensate developers for the demolition expense.
Mike Kelleher spoke remotely, thanking the committee for their work while maintaining that their proposals couldn’t happen in the short term. He apologized for any mischaracterization about immediate demolition and suggested the possibility of a community-focused restaurant operation in the interim that could help advance future planning processes, especially given the budget forecast challenges discussed earlier in the meeting.
A committee member noted that the Hawthorne committee was tasked with providing options for the parcel, which they had accomplished, but that decisions about RFPs, renting, and leasing were for the Select Board to evaluate. She expressed concern that residents had categorically told her they did not want residential development on the parcel, questioning the viability of the plan without residential and expressing skepticism about office space given remote work trends.
The committee member also raised concerns about parking reduction from 110 to 30 spaces when residents already complain about insufficient parking, questioning how people would access the proposed courtyard development and whether the financial viability would justify potential public complaints about reduced parking.
Phelan acknowledged that parking solutions existed outside the Hawthorne committee’s scope, mentioning potential use of St. John’s back lot and other properties that could provide parking for various development concepts, though noting these wouldn’t completely solve parking challenges.
A committee member pointed out that the public currently doesn’t have access to Hawthorne parking due to an attendant system restricting use to restaurant patrons, questioning whether residents could now use the lot. Conners explained that the lease remains in effect until December 9th, giving the leaseholder continued control, and committed to developing a plan for potential public use after lease expiration while ensuring appropriate insurance coverage.
Watson addressed residential and height concerns by noting that at least half the buildings on Humphrey Street between Fish House and Mission are three stories with retail on first floors and apartments above, arguing their recommendation continued rather than departed from existing street character. He emphasized this represented traditional town planning approaches used across the country.
Fletcher corrected that Watson’s committee was split on residential use. Watson acknowledged this while encouraging the Select Board to make independent decisions based on familiarity with current Humphrey Street development patterns.
Phelan reflected on lessons learned from past Humphrey Street development, noting frustration with three-story residential-only buildings that block ocean views and suggesting the community wanted to avoid repeating those patterns. She emphasized that the Hawthorne site, as the entrance to town, should potentially differ from existing street development rather than continue those patterns.
Watson responded that the town appeared traumatized by developments like Concordia, noting people’s positive reactions to appropriately scaled buildings like the Cassidy Insurance building with pitched roofs and human-scale third floors. Phelan emphasized her responsibility to listen to residents rather than convince them to accept residential development for financial viability.
Watson argued that Select Board leadership involved more than simply counting votes, suggesting the board might need to exercise judgment about what works practically while acknowledging the importance of democratic input. He noted hearing various resident concerns, including complaints about Humphrey Street being “dark” despite it being an east-west street receiving sunlight throughout the day.
Phelan concluded by thanking Watson and the committee for their work, noting the board had just received the report and needed time to digest it before scheduling future discussions about implementation. Fletcher thanked Watson, and a Board of Assessors member suggested issuing an RFI or RFQ to the business community within 60-90 days to obtain real presentations from developers and end users with financials, uses, renderings, and complete information at no cost to the town.
Fletcher asked whether committee members would continue participating in the process. Watson indicated willingness to help but noted he wasn’t volunteering for ongoing involvement. A committee member clarified that many committee members considered their work complete. Fletcher emphasized that the committee’s work was finished and thanked them for their service, suggesting they could arrange a celebration of their completed efforts.
Special Town Meeting Warrant Articles Review and Voting (Link: 02:45:00 – 03:47:00)
Phelan moved to review the special town meeting warrant articles for discussion and votes on inclusion. Conners explained this was for the board to vote on their recommendations, noting one outstanding question about tax rate adjustments. He mentioned meeting with the moderator, town counsel and others the following day for preparation.
Fletcher asked whether they were voting before FINCOM, with Conners noting FINCOM was meeting the next day. Phelan indicated they traditionally wait for FINCOM input and have voted the evening before town meeting in the past, allowing information to be provided to the moderator for favorable action presentations. The board agreed to use the meeting for discussion and information requests, with votes to follow FINCOM’s review.
For Article 1, approving bills from prior fiscal years, a committee member asked if the list continued to grow. Conners and Patrick confirmed nothing had been added since the previous meeting two weeks ago, though items had been added between the initial warrant draft and the last meeting. The board voted 5-0 in favor of Article 1.
Article 2 involved budget transfers that Conners described as “the shuffle” for known adjustments rather than waiting until year-end, ensuring appropriations reflected anticipated spending. The board voted 5-0 in favor of Article 2.
Article 3 related to Conners’ overly optimistic hope for having a candidate before the board, which he did not anticipate happening. He planned to discuss withdrawal or indefinite postponement language with the moderator and counsel, leaving the decision for the Monday meeting.
Article 4 concerned the annual transfer for homeless and foster care transportation costs. Fletcher raised concerns about a $574,000 balance in the schools’ Nahant revolving account, questioning why money should be transferred to schools when they were sitting on substantial funds that had never been disclosed during budget discussions. She suggested withholding the transfer until the revolving account situation was resolved.
A committee member disagreed with withholding the transfer, noting they lacked the full picture and shouldn’t fault the schools in advance when there might be logical explanations. Thompson agreed it seemed punitive to mix separate issues and suggested having school representatives present to explain their decision-making process rather than having Conners paraphrase conversations.
Discussion revealed the revolving account funds could be spent on educational purposes for middle and high school students, with flexibility for general education expenses. Conners preferred having school staff present for the discussion to avoid misrepresenting anything. Thompson suggested tabling the vote until more information could be obtained, which the board agreed to do.
Article 5 involved rescinding a $400,000 transfer vote from the May 2025 annual town meeting that would have exceeded the 2% cap required for the special education reserve fund. Conners explained the money was never moved and rescinding the authorization would prevent violating the 2016 special act requirements, with the funds closing out to free cash.
Fletcher recalled the original $400,000 transfer was intended because schools anticipated depleting their special education fund, but they actually finished the year at $450,000 plus received additional state funding. Patrick confirmed they ended fiscal year 2025 with $438,980 not including the anticipated $400,000 transfer. The board voted 5-0 to support Article 5, with Fletcher voting no due to concerns about the overall financial situation.
Article 6 proposed transferring $94,800 to the special education reserve fund under the MOU agreement based on year-end turnbacks and savings, staying under the 2% threshold. Fletcher voted no again citing the need to understand the complete financial situation, while the other board members voted in favor.
Patrick clarified the timing of transfers, explaining that the May vote was interpreted as applying to fiscal year 2026 since it involved an account transfer rather than operating budget, reducing available free cash accordingly. Rescinding the vote would make those funds available when the fiscal year closes.
Article 7 addressed tax rate adjustment using free cash, with Conners noting this practice violated good financial policy since free cash should be used for one-time expenses rather than annual events. He provided context that every $100,000 spent would impact the average home by approximately $15. Thompson referenced the historical promise to mitigate school debt exclusion impacts for voters.
Patrick reported the town’s free cash position at 4.4% of budget, providing $1,070,000 available for appropriation within policy guidelines. Discussion covered the traditional $850,000-$1.2 million used for tax rate reduction versus current constraints from pending collective bargaining agreements and other unknowns.
Fletcher expressed inability to support any tax rate reduction given too many unknowns, while Thompson argued they couldn’t avoid providing relief given the significant tax increases. The board agreed to await FINCOM’s opinion and requested scenarios showing impacts of different contribution levels, along with free cash projections and analysis of other anticipated expenses.
Article 8 concerned the library side entrance project contingent on grant approval, with decision expected December 5th. The project would only proceed if the grant was awarded and would be most economical if done during front entrance construction mobilization. A committee member asked about warrant language specifying the grant contingency, which Conners agreed to clarify with counsel.
Article 9 for the Abbott Park grant received unanimous support as the town match for an already-received grant in the final phase of a multi-phase project.
Article 10 initially included expanded language to accommodate potential personal property agreements with the vacating tenant, but since their auction was complete, the language could revert to previous restaurant/hospitality use authorization. The article proposed extending lease authority until December 31, 2028.
A committee member expressed concerns about the three-year duration, referencing original intent to maintain tight oversight when the Hawthorne was purchased and preferring shorter terms with town meeting approval for extensions. He noted that three years wasn’t feasible for serious restaurant investment, which would require 10-year terms minimum, and worried about town responsibility for building systems and insurance.
Thompson defended the three-year authorization as providing flexibility for temporary operators, noting uncertainty about how much time would be needed to make temporary use worthwhile. A committee member argued for testing the market to see what responses emerged rather than assuming no viable proposals would materialize.
Discussion covered the timeline implications of RFI/RFP processes potentially taking six months before building occupancy, effectively creating a two-year lease period. A committee member expressed concerns about town responsibilities for capital expenditures and building maintenance given the structure’s deferred maintenance issues.
The board debated whether to limit uses to restaurant/hospitality or allow broader applications. Previous authorization language was broad, allowing the Select Board to determine appropriate uses. Discussion also covered whether to specify revenue-producing uses to address concerns about residential or other inappropriate uses.
After extensive discussion about duration, the board reached compromise on a two-and-a-half-year term ending June 30, 2028, which aligned with fiscal year timing and maintained pressure for resolution while providing reasonable time for temporary operators. Thompson made a friendly amendment to this date, which was accepted.
Watson returned to provide commentary on the economic realities of temporary restaurant operation, arguing that no serious restaurant operator would invest significantly in a 22,000 square foot building knowing they would leave in two years. A committee member responded that they couldn’t make assumptions without testing the market through an RFP process.
The board voted 5-0 to approve Article 10 with the June 30, 2028 termination date, with one member noting an asterisk on his vote indicating continued discomfort with the duration while supporting board unity.
Consent Agenda and Select Board Comments (Link: 03:47:00 – 03:55:00)
Phelan moved to the consent agenda, which included a one-day liquor license for the senior center wine tasting and meeting minutes from November 5th and November 10th. A committee member motioned to approve the consent agenda, which was seconded and passed unanimously 5-0.
During Select Board time, Conners added that he had failed to mention the Veterans Day event at the monument in his earlier report, thanking the team for organizing a fantastic event that included a collation afterwards, in addition to the breakfast he had previously mentioned.
Fletcher provided several updates, thanking Nate Beisheim and Nathan Kent for bringing the meeting that evening, and the DPW for hanging banners in the rain the day before. She reported that the solid waste committee had a successful pumpkin toss, with many pumpkins diverted from the waste stream and Stephanie Newman securing a farm to take them for free, saving over $500 from the previous year. Fletcher emphasized the urgency of working on an RFP for solid waste services, noting it was one of the town’s largest expenses.
Fletcher reported that Swampscott for All Ages was finishing their AARP audit and had discussed issues with the lack of benches at bus stops, which are regulated by mass transportation rather than the town, requiring outreach to Jenny Armini for assistance. She recognized Bill Dandril, who was honored by the Lynn Veterans Council for his extensive work with veterans, noting he was featured on the cover of the Lynn Item.
Fletcher requested that the water and sewer commission appointments be added to the next agenda, specifically mentioning Andrea Moore and another nominee whose name she couldn’t read in her notes. She expressed discomfort with people not being appointed to the committee and wanted the matter addressed at the December 3rd meeting rather than before town meeting.
Thompson provided a CPA update, noting the CPA committee would be seated on December 12th (correcting himself from December 10th), thanking Dianne and the statewide coalition for their support. He also mentioned that Kleinfelder’s work on the coastline was progressing toward a final draft with interesting and thought-provoking ideas, asking Conners to ensure it would be presented as soon as appropriate since Marzi was on vacation.
A committee member thanked Wayne Spritz for organizing the pumpkin toss, noting she participated by tossing pumpkins herself and that many people attended the well-executed event. She expressed pride in the board for coming together on the Hawthorne issue, noting it was important to many people and that the restaurant parking lot had been full in recent weeks, suggesting it wasn’t easy to simply tear down and start over.
Phelan reminded residents who kept pumpkins through Thanksgiving that they could recycle them through Black Earth Composting behind the cemetery or at the police station rather than putting them in trash. She also announced that the governor had signed S23, authorizing the appointment of alternate members to the Conservation Commission, which the town had been waiting for after town meeting approval, and that the Conservation Commission had been informed and would mobilize to appoint alternates.
Fletcher motioned to adjourn, which was seconded and passed unanimously, ending the meeting.
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.