At Essex’s Annual Town Meeting on Monday, 247 residents turned out to take up a 28-article warrant that unfolded less like routine municipal business and more like a series of procedural pivots, close calls, and pointed debate.
In the end, voters approved an ambitious slate of business, approving two Proposition 2½ overrides for town and school operations, capital expenditures, and funding for a secondary road to the Dept. of Public Works facility while they declined to repeal a portion of the zoning bylaw aimed at preserving open space with clustered developments.
Overrides for Town, School Operations
The first procedural move came early, when voters agreed to take up Article 8—wage and salary increases—out of order, jumping ahead of Articles 3 through 6, which included the town’s $10,778,720 FY27 operating budget (an 8.08% increase), its share of the Manchester Essex Regional School District budget, and two Proposition 2½ overrides.
Finance Committee Chair Jody Harris told voters that wage increases were concentrated in the Library and Council on Aging.
But discussion quickly centered on a proposal to add a full-time fire prevention officer to Essex’s 48-member volunteer Fire Department. Resident Ed Neal moved to remove the staff position from the article. A nine-year veteran volunteer whose son also serves, Neal warned that introducing a paid role could create friction and undermine the department’s culture.
For two decades, he said, the department has warned it cannot sustain an all-volunteer model—yet it has continued to do so. “I’m unaware of any calamities,” he said.
Fire Chief Christian Hassell defended the need for the position, saying his department responded to more than 600 calls last year and faces increasing regulatory complexities. Adding the fire prevention officer would strengthen—not weaken—the department, Hassell told voters.
“This is a strategic step to preserve what’s good about the Fire Department,” he said.
After extended debate, Article 8 passed. A motion to reconsider the article failed, locking in the decision.
With wages set, voters turned to the larger budget questions. The Finance Committee urged support for a $257,127 override to supplement the town’s operating budget, citing a 14.4% increase in health insurance costs and rising pressure to retain staff. The town has not sought such an override in more than 20 years.
Resident Brian Gressler supported the measure but said the request was not surprising after years of austerity. Last year’s override, he argued, was publicly framed around school spending but masked a deeper issue in the town’s operating budget.
“Austerity is not a long-term solution,” he said.
Pressed on alternatives, Harris said the FinCom would not recommend using reserves if the override failed, but would instead cut expenses, including within the Fire Department.
The override (Article 3) passed comfortably, as did the town’s operating budget (Article 4). Funding for education followed with little debate: Article 7, covering Essex’s $10,948,841 share of the regional school district budget, passed easily with little-to-no discussion, as did its associated $185,727 override. Voters also passed $257,127 to fund Essex’s share of the North Shore Technical School (Article 5), without discussion.
Both overrides will now move to the ballot at the May 11 town election.
OSRD Zoning Upheld
One citizen’s petition drew some of the night’s most sustained debate. Article 28, brought by Ed Neal, sought to repeal the town’s Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) bylaw, adopted in 2011.
OSRD allows the Planning Board to approve clustered subdivisions if a significant portion of the land—often up to 70%—is preserved as open space. The approach was used in the recent 36-unit development off Essex Park Road.
Neal argued the bylaw encourages smaller lots that generate less tax revenue than traditional subdivisions and concentrates the tax burden on fewer property owners. Essex, he said, already has ample open space, and the additional preserved lands may bring unwanted maintenance costs and potential liability.
“Large lots and fences make for good neighbors,” Neal said.
Supporters echoed Neal’s concerns about density, the loss of small-town “character,” and strain on public resources. At one point, debate turned heated, with accusations of NIMBYism and dog whistles directed at one resident who raised cost concerns about OSRD developments attracting new families, which would spike school enrollment and the tax burden.
Planning Board Chair Lisa O’Donnell urged voters to reject the repeal, reminding them that OSRD bylaw was adopted with more than 80 percent approval in 2011.
OSRD developments, she said, are rare and provide a valuable tool to shape growth in Essex. Without it, the 84.4-acre Essex Park Road parcel likely would have been fully developed, producing similar tax revenue while eliminating open space and encouraging housing sprawl.
O’Donnell also pointed to broader trends: from the 1970s to the 1990s, Massachusetts’ population grew 12 percent while developed land increased 34 percent.
“That’s not sustainable,” she said.
Voters agreed, and Article 28 was ultimately voted down.
A Road for Temporary Use Off Apple Street
Another extended debate centered on Article 22, which sought $75,000 to construct a secondary access road across town-owned land at 30 Apple Street to reach Department of Public Works facilities and the transfer station.
Currently, access relies on Landing Road, which crosses a deteriorating culvert. Repairs are expected within one to three years and could temporarily close the route.
DPW Director Nick Ellis said planning for a secondary road began more than a year ago and was a key justification for the town’s 2024 purchase of the Apple Street property. The proposed project would use town staff, rented equipment, and recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) already owned by the town, to keep costs relatively low.
Early in the discussion, the FinCom’s Ruth Pereen framed Article 22 as a question of funding rather than whether the project should proceed.
“The road is going in,” she said. “This is going to cost … one way or another.”
Apple Street residents, who have organized successfully against previous road-related proposals, turned out in force. But it wasn’t enough. Over the course of the debate, they introduced four amendments—none of which passed.
One sought to prohibit the use of RAP, citing potential health concerns. Ellis said RAP is not considered hazardous unless it obstructs stormwater flow, which would not be the case here. He also said the DPW priced alternative material like gravel, which would add $35,000 to the project.
Another amendment proposed restricting the road’s use with gates and formal limitations. A third sought to narrow the road from 24 feet to 20 feet. A final motion called for indefinite postponement.
All failed.
“Let these guys build the road they actually need,” said resident Dan Mayer.
Article 22 ultimately passed.
More Public Works Projects
After the extensive ping-ponging of the Apple Street road debate, the remaining DPW articles drew little debate and focused largely on infrastructure and equipment needs. Ellis introduced them one by one, and they were approved, quickly and without discussion, “like butter”:
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here