Community Corner

Residential Ruled Out As Part Of Swampscott Hawthorne Property Redevelopment

The Select Board voted 3-2 to disquality any development proposals that include apartments or condos.

SWAMPSCOTT, MA — A weeks-long Swampscott Select Board debate on whether to eliminate or discourage residential development as part of the future of the town-owned Hawthorne property came to an apparent conclusion with a 3-2 vote to disqualify any proposals that include apartments or condos.

Select Board members went back and forth for hours in recent meetings about their collective desire — echoing the sentiment of nearly all who have spoken in public comment — not to have residential units as part of any future development.

Select Board Chair Katie Phelan and member Ted Dooley had sought language negatively viewing residential over a complete disqualification — citing concerns that the outright ban would limit the number and quality of responses from developers who might view some type of residential component as a financial essential to the ability to redevelop the whole site.

Find out what's happening in Swampscottfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

But, ultimately, the majority sentiment prevailed with Select Board MaryEllen Fletcher voting with Danielle Leonard and Wayne Spritz opposing residential.

"I know we don't want to limit our possibilities," Leonard said. "But I think this is one of those cases where we have to take a stand because we cannot just let this go on to infinity where we debate. We're always going to have people with different opinions. We've got to put some guardrails.

Find out what's happening in Swampscottfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

"This is a really big one where we have to come out and say that we do not want residential there."

The other major public comment talking point about how much of the land should remain "open space" got a less restrictive determination, with the Board deciding on language where Request for Proposals would be looked upon more favorably the more open space that is included, without providing percentages or firm parameters on exactly what that means.

"When the Board came before town meeting to sell this property to purchase, nobody promised economic development on that land," Phelan said. "Nobody stood up before town meeting and said: 'We're going to have commercial/mixed-use here.' They used the words 'open space.'

"That is how (it triggered) the switch that everybody clicked and decided that's OK, that we want to invest in this parcel. So, if we're saying residential is off the table because that does not align with what was sold at town meeting, then it would be, to me, disingenuous not to put open space as the No. 1 item that we say to the RFP respondent, that if you are not providing open space then you'd better rethink this."

Phelan reiterated that the Board had previously voted to lease the space to a developer — over selling it outright. The Board took a no-preference position on whether the restaurant building itself should be demolished or incorporated as part of a new development.

Phelan said an RFP will now be prepared based on the initial Board directives and will be brought back for public comment and further discussion at least twice more as agenda items before being issued.

Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.