Click here or the image below for the full text of each warrant article and the recommendations of the advisory board.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
Op/Ed by Tom Burns, Dan Ciccariello, and Jacob Vaillancourt | Hull Municipal Light Commissioners
We are writing to you as members of the Hull Municipal Light Plant Board of Commissioners to discuss our critical electrical infrastructure and the necessary changes to our governance structure.
The Hull Municipal Light Plant has been a vital community asset for more than a century, providing electricity at rates consistently lower than investor-owned utilities (IOUs). Our municipal ownership allows us to focus on serving you, the ratepayers, rather than maximizing profits for distant shareholders.
Not only do we offer lower rates, but we’ve also maintained a cleaner energy portfolio than most IOUs. The HMLP has a history of environmental leadership, with our energy resource mix approaching nearly 75% non-carbon emissions generation sources.
Despite our successes, Hull faces serious threats to our electrical infrastructure that require immediate attention. In the summer of 2023, Hull set a new peak electrical demand. According to projections, by 2027, we will exceed our current physical capacity. This timeline has likely accelerated with the recent construction of new condo and apartment complexes.
Our town’s power supply depends entirely on aging feeder lines that run through heavily wooded areas in Hingham. These lines, owned and maintained by National Grid, were built in the 1930s and are in poor condition. Hull currently has a pending lawsuit against National Grid for its failure to adequately maintain these critical lines.
When outages occur, they are often prolonged because the location of the lines makes repairs difficult, especially at night. This vulnerability creates serious public safety concerns, particularly during winter months. The HMLP in response has spent millions on temporary generators to ensure that any power interruptions during the colder months will be limited. This is a temporary measure, and a longer term solution needs to be developed.
The laws that set how municipal light plants are structured, run, and managed are covered by Massachusetts General Laws in Chapter 164. This law states clearly that funds collected by the light plant cannot be used to run the town and vice versa. MGL, Chapter 164, Section 56 vests exclusive managerial power over the municipal light department “in the board of selectmen, the mayor, or the municipal light board, if any, and their appointee, the general manager.” What this means is that state law expects and intends light plants to be operated under some arrangement that includes direct oversight. Unfortunately, in Hull, the light board is restricted to this role: “The municipal light board shall set rates and advise the town manager on general policy.” In place of a plant manager, we defer to a town manager.
That change occurred in 1993. Since then, when management of the light plant was transferred to the town manager’s office, there have been instances of fund misuse and misappropriation. According to state law, MLPs can augment the town’s tax base by contributing what is called a payment in lieu of taxes, or PILOT. These should only be made once a year following a light board’s review of the plant manager’s finance report. The payment should not be made unless the MLP completes a fiscal year with a surplus. However, this payment has been made every year since the governance change in 1993, with the current town manager committing them fractionally – once each month – without our review.
The MLP board has been unable to address this issue due to its limited authority, as defined by the town charter, which restricts its role to “setting rates and advising the town manager on general policy.”
The previous town manager used these funds to help balance the town’s budget. This may not reflect the current town manager’s intent, but the policy remains unchanged. Since the board ceded its authority in 1993, more than $7 million in PILOT payments have been made from the MLP to the town of Hull.
In Hull, the town manager also serves as the light plant manager, and the light board is limited to setting electric rates and providing advice. This dual-role arrangement creates subtle but serious conflicts of interest. Whereas the town manager is compelled to use any and all available funds to run the town to the highest standard achievable, a dedicated light plant manager is compelled to do the same for the light plant, but in a focused manner and with a discrete budget, one defined by payments for electric power.
In the long run, the priority for a town manager is clearly on the side of the town, versus any single department. Understandable, but messy.
Because she answers to the select board and not the light board, we have an appointed bureaucrat running an MLP with no effective oversight from its board. The light board has no authority to address performance issues with her performance as light plant manager, because she does not answer to us. If the light board has concerns, we cannot take action. We cannot hire or fire the manager.
Most MLP boards can. In fact, almost all – 36 out of the 41 towns that own a light plant – have a structure like the one we’re proposing Hull to adopt, and which align much more clearly what the provisions in state law were written to support.
The special management arrangement we have in Hull gave appointees and officials a much easier time executing some of the basic duties, like keeping rates low, but has left its electrical infrastructure vulnerable to convoluted or conflicted management decisions that prioritize the town budget at the expense of the light plant. It cannot be expected to prioritize the long-term interests of your MLP and its continued ability to serve all with electric power.
We are asking for you to support Article 37 at the upcoming town meeting to amend the structure of the Hull Municipal Light Board and restore it to its proper role under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 164 and remove the town manager from the role of the light plant manager.
A “yes” vote is the first step in a longer process. Because Hull has a special act town charter, we need the state legislature’s approval to make these changes. Your vote will authorize the select board to file a home-rule petition with the state requesting this amendment to our charter.
This change is essential to ensure Hull has:
- A dedicated, full-time light plant manager focused solely on electrical needs
- Proper oversight of said manager
- A check on PILOT payments
- Transparency in plant operations
- Thorough, real, long-term preparation and planning for growing electrical demands
- Attention to threats, especially our inadequate supply lines in Hingham
- A direct line of accountability
We believe this structural change is crucial for securing Hull’s energy future. Our community deserves an electrical infrastructure that is reliable, sustainable, and well-managed. The current governance structure subverts basic democratic principles intended by state law. Your vote can help restore them by replacing the general-purpose town manager with a light plant manager accountable directly to your duly elected light board.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
Op/Ed by Polly Rowe
Article 37: Hull Town Manager serving as Hull Light Plant Manager benefits everyone. Town meeting warrant Article 37 is a proposal submitted by light board member Jacob Vaillancourt and others to remove the town manager from the role of municipal light plant manager. It seeks to restore to the light board the statutory responsibility found in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 164, “including but not limited to the ability to make policy, hire and fire the light plant manager, employees (pursuant to union and any civil service requirements), and to perform as a board those actions and responsibilities it had prior to 1993,” when the town manager was designated to serve in the light plant manager role. (The Hull Times, March 6, 2025).
HULL MUNICIPAL LIGHT PLANT
The rights, duties, and obligations of municipal light commissions and light plant managers are authorized by, and defined according to, state statutes dating back to 1890. Case law of recorded Supreme Judicial Court decisions on constitutionality continue to serve to inform and address these fundamental legal concepts outlined in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 164. Accordingly, one light board member’s sharing in the board’s public meeting of a constituent’s analogy comparing the town manager (unanimously appointed by the select board) who serves as light plant manager to Elon Musk, an unelected bureaucrat unaccountable to the public, was factually unfounded, and thus not applicable.
Respectfully stated to my fellow Hull residents who will vote on Article 37 at town meeting, most of us are woefully uninformed about the rights, responsibilities, obligations, and legal statutory and town charter delineations of power and authority vested to the municipal light board (commission), the municipal light plant manager (town manager), and the relationship between these two entities. Town meeting’s vote on this article will have profound consequential outcomes on the town as a whole that are numerous and significant: they will substantively financially impact all residents and local businesses. Because the light board’s primary fiduciary obligation is to protect the ratepayers in providing reliable, efficient, affordable electricity at steady rates (without volatile price fluctuations), I would implore voters to garner the facts to fully understand all aspects of the opposing opinions and perspectives in order to make a well-informed decision on this matter of such fundamental importance.
Hull Municipal Light Board public meetings have included discussions on several key issues of concern, including the perceived conflict of interest by some regarding Hull’s town manager also serving as the light plant manager, payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs), and the light board’s advisory-only role that excludes executive decision-making authority. After attending the March 27 meeting, I respectfully characterize Article 37 as an understandable, yet nonetheless emotionally fraught, overreaction to past events and circumstances that transpired in a previous administration. The realization that Article 37 is a solution in search of a problem makes me want to first clearly define the problem(s) that need to be addressed before we vote on an ill-conceived solution that may prove to be irrevocably detrimental to everyone involved.
Massachusetts cities and towns must have a municipal light plant manager as mandated by state law. This role “shall be entrusted to one officer, who shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor in a city and by the selectmen in a town.” (Chapter 164, c. 370 *8). It is optional, not state-mandated, for communities to choose individuals at town meeting to serve as light commissioners. In 1993, in accordance with Hull’s town manager form of government established in 1989, residents voted at town meeting to give unrestricted control of and authority over the municipal light plant to the town manager following the recall of all but one (current) member of Hull’s municipal light board including due to egregious, unlawful, incompetent, gross mismanagement. History repeats itself when we fail to learn its lessons: Hull does not want, nor can it afford, a repeat of the pre-1993 fiscal fiasco.
The fiscal operation of the municipal light plant is governed by MGL Chapter 164, not by the statutory procedures applicable to other town departments. This law ascribes broad authority in at least eight categories to a municipal light plant manager: “The town manager shall supervise the operation of the municipal light plant and shall have the authority to hire, suspend, or remove personnel, and to negotiate personnel and all other contracts, and shall be responsible for the day-to-day functioning and operation of said light plant in accordance with the provisions of chapter one hundred and sixty-four of the General Laws. The municipal light board shall set rates and advise the town manager on general policy. The town manager shall present the annual budget of the light plant to the finance committee (advisory board) and board of selectmen.” This reflects a clear contrast to the pre-1993 system in which the light board operated without any of the necessary checks and balances on potential “fraudulent, unlawful, and excessive” monetary expenditures.
MGL Chapter 164 delineates the powers, duties, responsibilities, and limitations of municipal light boards and their individual commissioners. (1992 Golubek v. Westfield Gas & Electric Light Board). For example, the light board “has the power to give the MLP manager general directions with regard to the operation of the plant, including general directions as to the engagement of labor relations consultants, but not the power to hire agents, servants, and attorneys. That power, by statute, is expressly vested in the manager alone,” and “individual MLP commissioners cannot usurp authority of the manager.”
MLP managers and commissioners must act in accordance with certain ”reasonable” standards guided by what’s known as the business judgement rule. An established industry standard, this rule presumes that directors and commissioners act independently, unbiased, and with no self-interest while exercising reasonable due care in making fully well-informed decisions to protect the best interests of the “corporation” they serve. “The proper exercise of due diligence in decision-making by a director in informing himself of material information and in overseeing the outside advice on which he might properly rely is, of necessity, a pre-condition to performing this ultimate duty of acting in good faith to protect the best interests of the corporation.” In this context, it’s worth re-stating select board Chair Irwin Nesoff’s statement that the town manager, a Hull citizen and residential taxpayer, also serving as the light plant manager, does not receive any additional stipend from the light plant beyond the salary that was negotiated for the town manager position.
The Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC) recently performed a financial review of Hull’s light plant to assess its overall financial health, with a specific focus on financial and operational indicators. (The Hull Times, January 23, 2025) As a result, MMWEC has recommended that the light board consider a rate increase due in part to the need for the light plant to replenish its cash reserves; it further recommends that the light plant not pursue more debt in the meantime. MMWEC’s presentation to the light board indicated that the light plant “had a relatively strong cash position prior to 2022.” However, power and operating costs “became more challenging in 2021 – with base rates remaining static while overall costs appreciated,” the report stated. In this context, as we await news of a potential rate increase, it’s worth noting the town manager’s budgetary statement (March 12, 2025 select board meeting) that all costs – administrative, contracts, health insurance, supplies, materials, pensions, and benefits – continue to increase since the light board’s last rate increase 11 years ago in 2014.
The Hull Municipal Light Board provides ratepayers reliable, efficient, affordable, almost 70% carbon-free electricity with excellent service superlative to most light departments. Along with a present prioritization of increasing cash reserves, the light board is fully focused on planning for the future, including an expansion of our current capacity and various alternative power supply sources needed to meet the increasing demands on the system.
In my humble opinion, the current White House administration’s (denial) perspectives on global climate change adds an additional stressor to our local economy because the grants for future funding may be unavailable or very limited at best. Before we take a radical leap from the frying pan into the fireplace by approving at town meeting Article 37, which seeks to remove the current town manager as the light plant manager, we should first actively pursuit other viable alternatives, such as the following: Let’s seek to clarify the parameters of the light board’s advisory role. Let’s ask if it is possible for the Hull Municipal Light Board, in accordance with the legal guidelines set forth both by statute under MGL Chapter 164 and in Hull’s charter, to be given an opportunity to have a seat at the table with the town manager to participate in the discussion of PILOTs regarding any future monetary expenditures and appropriations taken from the light board to the Town of Hull, and have the light board formally put on record their votes on these matters.
Unless and until we have first done our homework by exploring the alternative options available, I implore Hull residents to vote “no” on Article 37.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
By Carol Britton Meyer
The Affordable Housing Committee will host a meeting next week to share information about the town meeting proposal to create an affordable housing trust.
Such a trust would help create and preserve below-market-rate housing for low- and moderate-income households and fund community housing, as the AHC doesn’t have the authority to develop housing, but rather can educate citizens and advocate for it.
The purpose of the meeting is “to help citizens understand what a trust is,” Select Board Chair Irwin Nesoff – the board’s liaison to the AHC – explained at his board’s meeting Wednesday night.
The affordable housing trust session is scheduled for Thursday, April 10, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hull High School exhibition room.
The presentation by members of the committee is entitled “What is a Municipal Housing Trust Fund?” and will explain how the trust fund would help to create affordable housing in town. There will be an opportunity for community members to offer input, ask questions, submit ideas, and share experiences.
The select board, which earlier approved the article, voted unanimously in favor of Nesoff, and any other interested board member, speaking on this subject on the floor of town meeting. Board member Jerry Taverna was not present.
“This is a very important project, and I want to congratulate the committee, which has worked for many months to put this article together [with input from] consultants and town counsel,” Nesoff said. “The important thing is that a trust would give the town a method for supporting the construction, renovation and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing, none of which has been produced for a long time in Hull.”
AHC Chair Cynthia Koebert thanked Nesoff for his “active part” on the committee and the select board for its support. In addition, the advisory board recently voted unanimously in support the article.
“This would be a tool to act in a more timely fashion,” she said. “The housing crisis has only gotten worse, and it’s not getting easier.”
Contingent on town meeting approval, a trust would bring additional expertise and timely decision-making to the utilization of Community Preservation Act funds for affordable housing. The Community Preservation Committee has approximately $500,000 available from the annual required 10% allocation of funds, plus reserves, to support community housing.
Koebert noted that some neighboring communities have had success with affordable housing trusts.
“During my two years on the committee, we haven’t developed one single unit of affordable housing,” she said. “With a trust, we would be able to provide affordable housing for various income levels.”
Board member Greg Grey thinks the warrant article will “pass on a breeze” at town meeting with Nesoff speaking on behalf of the article.
Following the information session, the presentation will be posted on the town’s website. The meeting will also be recorded by Hull Community Television and available on demand at hulltv.net.
In other business…
• The idea of creating an interactive town meeting warrant with links to related information is being explored, Town Manager Jennifer Constable told the select board. A future town newsletter will also feature information about the warrant articles.
• The proposed two-way road plan in the Surfside/HRA area and the deteriorating former hockey rink in the parking lot near Rockland Circle will be discussed at the next meeting between the Department of Conservation and Recreation and town officials, according to Constable.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
By Carol Britton Meyer
The select board addressed a full agenda this week – from an update on the new 125-foot Strawberry Hill water tank and appointing members to the town’s USA Semiquincentennial (250th) Anniversary Committee to the proposed fiscal 2026 municipal budget and a follow-up discussion with the Hull Redevelopment Authority.
Town Manager Jennifer Constable presented a proposed $52.6 million fiscal 2026 municipal budget, representing a 4.84%, or $2.4 million, increase over the fiscal 2025 figure.
Major expenditures include health insurance, pension liability, and collective bargaining agreements, debt, seawall repairs, and restoration of Fort Revere, among others.
Included in the operating budget are the addition of two full-time fire department paramedic/EMT positions; a patrol and desk clerk position for the police department; and union and non-union salary adjustments.
Capital recommendations include IT system upgrades, town website upgrades and redesign, public safety replacement vehicles, a columbarium for the cemetery, repairs to the Draper Avenue pump station, DPW barn and salt shed, and fences, funds for the 250th celebration, and townwide line painting and seawall program.
Constable noted that there is no proposed operational override of Proposition 2-1/2, which is not the case in a number of surrounding towns.
The May 5 annual town meeting has the final say on all warrant articles, including the proposed school, municipal, and capital budgets.
Click here for the town manager’s budget presentation to the board.
Strawberry Hill water tank update
On a separate agenda item, Weir River Water System Managing Director/Superintendent Russell Tierney told the board that the new one-million-gallon Strawberry Hill water tank is expected to be online by fall 2027. A new pump station will be located in Hingham.
The tank, which will improve water quality and stabilize the pressure in the system, will display the name of the water company and also “Welcome to Hull.”
Tierney said he intends to talk to the neighbors living in the area to update them on the project. The new tank will be about double the capacity of the former 100-foot Strawberry Hill tank, which was taken down after a 2008 study by the water company determined the 75-year-old structure was no longer needed.
“We’ll do a balloon test [to show how high the water tank will be],” Tierney said.
While no rate increases are planned for fiscal 2026, an annual capital investment charge of about $65 a year per single-family dwelling will be added to customers’ bills starting July 1 to pay for the final design and construction of the water tank.
In other WRWS news, Tierney reported that $16 million in infrastructure repairs were made without the need to raise the rates.
In other business…
• Constable presented the annual $11.5 million annual light plant budget, which goes by the calendar year instead of the fiscal year.
A rate increase is under consideration. “There hasn’t been one for some time,” she said.
The issue of the generators that have been rented for the past several years in the case of a National Grid power outage was raised during the meeting.
To date, $3.5 million has been spent, while the generators have kicked in only for a few hours during that time period.
“The light board has been debating this issue,” light board member Tom Burns said. “Some members want to keep them, while others want to get rid of them.”
Select board member Jerry Taverna noted that some residents have purchased their own generators but don’t receive a credit on their bills.
Select board member Brian McCarthy noted that there have been “unprecedented high winds in the last few months, and there have been no power outages.”
Chair Irwin Nesoff suggested inserting a questionnaire in a light bill to gauge ratepayers’ interest in continuing with the generators in subsequent years.
• At his request, former select board member John Reilly was appointed as chair of the town’s 250th anniversary committee. He also chaired a similar committee to celebrate Hull’s 375th anniversary.
Board member Greg Grey, who also served on the 375th committee, was appointed to the 250th committee as the select board’s liaison.
Overall, the committee is charged with planning townwide activities commemorating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence; focusing on remembrances concentrated throughout 2025-26; coordinating events related to the founding of the country; and aligning Hull events with other local, state, regional, and federal commemorations.
“We’re thinking about a yearlong celebration, including fireworks, music, art, the town’s and country’s history, a field day, gala, and maybe dances, and the committee will update the board monthly,” Reilly said. “It will be an inclusive event, with a theme that could be ‘The promise of America.’ We’re ready to go.”
There will be numerous community events offering volunteer engagement for interested residents with a passion for local history.
Peter Preble, pastor of St. Nicholas United Methodist Church, Hull Lifesaving Museum Director of Development Maureen Gillis, and former town counsel James Lampke already have been appointed to the committee.
• In a follow-up to a select board discussion with the Hull Redevelopment Authority a couple of weeks ago, the main subject this week was whether the board would support the HRA’s inclusion of 900 parking spaces in the request for proposals for a parking lot operator this summer. The paid parking season begins May 1. Board member Dan Kernan was unable to attend.
Following a brief discussion, the board voted 4-1 in favor of allowing 900 cars to be parked in lots A, B, and C.
Grey was the nay vote. “This was never the intent for the property,” he said.
Zaia noted that there have been three responses to the parking operator RFP already.
The affirmative vote was contingent on the HRA working with the town’s piping plover ambassadors again this year to educate beachgoers about the plovers’ presence.
Select board member Brian McCarthy said he might not be inclined to vote in the affirmative again next year if there’s no plan for use of the HRA property by then – noting, half jokingly – that he would like to that happen in his lifetime.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
By Carol Britton Meyer
An article aimed at closing the gap between the town’s carefully crafted accessory dwelling units (ADU) bylaw and recent state legislation that allows ADUs of a certain size to be built as-of-right in single-family zoning districts will be on the May 5 town meeting warrant.
Hull’s original ADU proposal was part of the effort to increase the town’s affordable housing stock and to allow those who wish to “age in place” to do so while benefitting from the income generated from an ADU by renting it to family members, caregivers, or others.
While the state shares those goals, there are marked differences between the Hull bylaw and the new state law.
Click here to read the full text of the town meeting warrant article.
This legislation, which is part of the Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act, requires communities to allow accessory dwelling units of no more than one-half of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square feet – whichever is smaller – by right on single-family lots.
Voters at the 2024 annual town meeting approved an ADU bylaw with an owner occupancy requirement, while the state law doesn’t have one.
“This means that an investor could potentially come in and buy a single-family house, create an ADU, and then rent them both out,” Director of Community Development and Planning Chris DiIorio told the select board this week.
“That’s concerning,” select board member Brian McCarthy said.
No special permit needed under new law
Also, no special permit process is required under the state legislation, while a special permit is required under the Hull bylaw.
As a result of the passage of the warrant article, Hull’s bylaw allowed certain homeowners of single-family residences to add and rent out a self-contained housing unit within their home, subordinate in size to the principal dwelling, subject to the special permit process.
The new state law allows for either attached or detached ADUs and virtually replaces local zoning regulations across the state with a uniform law that allows qualifying homeowners to add these units without requiring a special permit, unless they are seeking to add more than one of these units on their property.
“We are trying to keep a sense of some kind of oversight over proposed ADUs,” DiIorio said, which makes the allowed site plan review process a valuable tool.
“We want to prohibit any detached ADUs where lots are not the appropriate size under town zoning,” he said. “We have been advised by town counsel that Hull can prohibit multiple ADUs on a single lot, so we will include that in the proposed amendment.”
Under Hull’s bylaw, the maximum size of an ADU was set at 900 square feet, and no units could be rented for fewer than six months to resolve short-term vacation rental concerns voiced by some citizens throughout the process.
In Hull, there’s a maximum of 10 permits that could be issued annually over 10 years under the town meeting-approved bylaw, for a potential 100 ADUs maximum, but such limits are no longer allowed under the new state legislation.
‘Subject to reasonable regulations’
While this legislation is “subject to reasonable regulations related to septic disposal and dimensional requirements” according to a description on Mass.gov, it differs from Hull’s new bylaw in a number of ways as outlined above. However, construction of ADUs is subject to local building codes, setback requirements, and site plan review.
Under Hull’s bylaw, ADU units are limited to a maximum of two bedrooms, with one off-street parking space required per bedroom under most circumstances. No exterior stairs to an ADU unit are allowed.
“There will be a lot of back and forth in Hull due to the smaller lot sizes,” Building Commissioner Bartley Kelly said. “[In addition], most of Hull is in a flood zone, so certain requirements must be met.”
While there were initially “a lot of applications [to create ADUs in Hull since the passage of the 2024 warrant article], and there could be even more with passage of the more liberal state legislation, Kelly said he thinks that “once [the applicant] gets into the nuts and bolts,” there could be fewer applications moving forward, or new ones filed.
“It’s not as easy as people think unless you’re living in an existing larger house,” he said.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
By Carol Britton Meyer
The draft warrant for the May 5 annual town meeting features 41 articles, including 11 citizens’ petitions.
The warrant articles, discussed by the select board this week, include proposals to remove the town manager from the role of municipal light plant manager; align Hull’s accessory dwelling units regulations with less-restrictive state law; prohibit highly illuminated, moving, and excessive commercial signage, electronic community message boards, and billboards; and projects recommended for funding by the Community Preservation Committee.
Article 36, submitted by light board member Jacob Vaillancourt and others, seeks to restore to the light board the statutory responsibility found in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 164, “including but not limited to the ability to make policy, hire and fire the light plant manager, employees (pursuant to union and any civil service requirements), and to perform as a board those actions and responsibilities it had prior to 1993,” when the town manager was designated to serve in the light plant manager role.
Select Board Chair Irwin Nesoff said that the town manager doesn’t receive an additional stipend from the light plant beyond the salary that was negotiated for the town manager position.
Town Manager Jennifer Constable noted that if town meeting approves this change, “there would be no town authority over the light plant,” which in certain cases could be “to the detriment of the entire community,” she said.
Another article relates to authorizing the select board to acquire land near 31 and 169 Beach Avenue and 33 Malta Street by eminent domain to allow for constructing, repairing, maintaining, or improving the road, utilities, dune, and infrastructure system and “to protect persons and property, to provide protection from storms or sea level rise, and to enable and facilitate public and municipal access to and use of the beach,” among other stipulations. A similar article failed to pass at last year’s town meeting.
Article 17 notes: “Nothing contained in this article or any action there under shall be construed to indicate that the town does not already own or have sufficient interests in the property. Any action taken under this article is intended to remove any clouds on the town’s rights and/or to establish and affirm the town’s rights.”
This matter “continues to make its way through litigation, and it’s important enough to revisit this year,” Constable said during a board review of the draft warrant this week.
Affordable housing trust creation
Another article calls for setting aside money to be used to cover matching funds as required by grants for which the town might apply, while another asks voters to approve the creation of an affordable housing trust to help create and preserve below-market-rate housing for low- and moderate-income households and to fund community housing.
Article 25, sponsored by the select board, would establish a schedule of fines for parking violations (not to exceed $100), and Article 37, submitted by Ann Marie Papasodero, would change the town’s bylaws to require a quorum of 150 registered voters to be present at town meeting and special town meeting in order to conduct business. The town has had a zero quorum rule since 1987, when voters eliminated the 150-voter quorum because of difficulty in obtaining the required number of participants.
Other proposals on the warrant would limit the number of times an individual can speak to no more than twice on any question at town meeting, with a couple of exceptions, and limit speakers to no more than five minutes the first time – down from the current seven minutes, excluding the presenter of the article – and no more than three minutes the second time on any subject.
CPC recommendations
The Community Preservation Committee’s projects to be discussed at town meeting include funding for the redevelopment of Jones Park in Kenberma with a new ADA-compliant playground, restoration of the Hull Lifesaving Museum boathouse at Pemberton Point, restoration of the Paragon Carousel’s roof, and preservation of town historic documents, among others.
Appropriating money for an ambulance and pumper truck is the subject of Article 23. Article 8 includes the general government and school budgets, while a number of the articles are for “housekeeping” purposes – required to be voted on each year to enable the government to operate.
Constable said the 11 citizen’s petitions are printed in the warrant “exactly as they were presented to us, including missing words or spelling inaccuracies. That’s how we have to include them in the warrant.”
In addition to the quorum article, the resident-sponsored proposals seek to rezone as public open space several town-owned and private conservation trust parcels, change the town’s inclusionary zoning bylaw to require 100% of units in developments of four or more to be designated affordable, and repeal the flexible plan development bylaw, among other considerations.
The board will sign the warrant on March 26, following further discussion at upcoming meetings. The advisory board also reviews each article and develops recommendations for voters to consider. Those attending the May 5 town meeting will have final say on the proposals through their votes.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
To the Editor:
In the past I have refrained from responding to letters to the editor, even when they spread incorrect information. But I cannot let an April 3 letter, “Multi-faceted approach is the best way to produce affordable housing…” to stand on its own. When the writer makes egregious charges accusing town staff and officials of “deliberately trying to confuse people,” I could not let that stand without a response.
Contrary to what the writer suggests, the Affordable Housing Committee (AHC) has been diligently pursuing ways to increase affordable housing. Two years ago, the committee successfully worked with town staff to submit and win a competitive state grant to retain consultants to study town-owned parcels to determine suitability for affordable housing. If our town is to make progress on increasing the affordable housing stock, we first must have the information needed.
With this information in hand, the AHC pursued technical assistance opportunities. The committee was successfully awarded two technical assistance grants from the Citizens Housing and Planning Association and the Massachusetts Housing Partnership. Working with these technical assistance providers, the committee worked for months to develop the Affordable Housing Trust article on the warrant for this year’s annual town meeting.
These volunteers should be congratulated and thanked for the countless hours they put into this successful effort, not excoriated for it. I have had the pleasure of serving as the select board liaison to the AHC and have nothing but respect for these fine people, who bring their time, expertise, and their hopes for improving our town to their volunteer work.
The writer refers to the inclusionary zoning bylaw passed at a previous town meeting, requiring a minimum of 10% affordable units in new multi-family housing, as ineffective. Unfortunately, Massachusetts law locks in current zoning regulations for eight years once a developer files a subdivision plan.
The Aquarium condos and Nantasket Dunes filed subdivision plans preventing any requirement for affordable units. This was not due to inaction by the town, it was in compliance with state law that our town cannot override. Had the inclusionary zoning bylaw been in place previously, we would have 15 units of affordable housing under construction. If we delay creating the housing trust, we may miss more opportunities to create affordable housing. Let’s not do the same thing again, instead let’s work together to move forward, not look backward to place blame.
The writer refers to the citizens’ petition she has submitted for town meeting requiring all new housing over four units to be 100% affordable. While this may seem a noble gesture, it presents an unintended consequence that could prevent any new affordable units from being built. The economics of construction require a critical mass of units and deep subsidies to achieve 100% affordability. Hull is densely built and there are few, if any, parcels that could support a 100% affordable building large enough to make economic sense for development. Additionally, the town does not have the resources, nor the access to capital, to subsidize the development of new affordable units. Sometimes ideas are so simplistic they seem feasible, as demonstrated in this citizens’ petition. Because something sounds good, it does not mean it will address the problem it is purporting to solve.
The Affordable Housing Trust article on the warrant for town meeting is a major step forward in creating affordable housing in our town. The trust will be empowered to raise money from a variety of sources, but no new taxes, that can help to make housing units affordable. Additionally, the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) currently has a balance of about $500,000 in its affordable housing reserve but has been unable to utilize this to support affordable housing. A housing trust, working in conjunction with the CPC, can utilize these funds to support or subsidize the creation of affordable units. One example is Habitat for Humanity. The AHC has joined with Habitat to seek ways of developing home ownership opportunities for moderate-income families on town-owned parcels.
I find it curious the writer has decided to file a citizens’ petition she believes will create affordable housing, without consulting with the AHC that has been working diligently for two years to develop ways to create affordable units in our town. Housing construction does not happen overnight, and affordable housing construction takes even longer to put a financing package together. Hull does not have the resources in its budget to subsidize affordable housing.
That is why an Affordable Housing Trust is needed.
Thank you,
Irwin Nesoff
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
To the Editor:
Support Article 25 on the town meeting warrant to establish the Hull Community Housing Trust fund.
I have had the pleasure of working with the nine-member Hull Affordable Housing Committee during the past two years. Our efforts, accomplishments, and disappointments have convinced me of the critical importance and need to establish a municipal affordable housing trust fund this year at town meeting.
A “yes” vote on Article 25 will create the Hull Community Housing Trust fund. The purpose of the housing trust is to create and preserve housing for the benefit of low- and moderate-income households.
The trust will be comprised of Hull residents and town officials and will work with the Community Preservation Committee to leverage existing, unspent funds to create and preserve housing.
Unlike the Affordable Housing Committee, the trust will have the power to manage and raise funds to conduct predevelopment activities, the “due diligence” needed to propose the use of municipal land and buildings at future town meetings.
While these may seem like lofty goals, Hull has always been an economically diverse community. Yet the growing disparity between how much housing costs and what many residents have to live on is at an all-time crisis. More than 32% of homeowners and 47% of renters in Hull are cost-burdened (paying more than 30% of their income) or very cost-burdened (paying more than 50% of their income) for housing.
Support for affordable housing in Hull is widespread. Members of Hull’s Affordable Housing Committee have convened monthly, knocked on doors, talked to residents outside Village Market, held community education meetings, and made regular reports to the select board during the last two years. Yet, no new affordable housing units have been planned or produced in our town in decades.
The Affordable Housing Committee, select board and advisory board each have unanimously endorsed the creation of the Hull Community Housing Trust fund.
I am absolutely convinced that Hull needs to establish this housing trust fund. Visit the AHC page of the town website (www.town.hull.ma.us/affordable-housing-committee) for more information. Join us. Please attend town meeting. Vote “yes” to support Article 25 on May 5.
Cynthia Koebert, Chair
Hull Affordable Housing Committee
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
To the Editor:
I’m always learning. I do a little research, think I understand, then realize I missed something important and I have to rearrange my thinking. I need all the facts to get the big picture.
I remember town meeting in 2023, when the town moderator presented his citizens’ petition warrant article creating Hull’s inclusionary housing unit bylaw. It hasn’t been used yet, but when the next large private housing project is built, 10% of the housing units have to be affordable.
The town moderator made six amendments to his own warrant article right off the bat. The first and most important amendment – to replace “Affordable Housing Committee” with “town manager” – was substituted by a motion to replace “Affordable Housing Committee” with “select board or select board designee.” That motion passed by a vote of 186-22, confirmed by the 2023 Annual Town Report and video of the town meeting on HullTV. But the inclusionary housing unit bylaw on the books today doesn’t include amendments one or six (both of which passed). Oddly, the bylaw does incorporate amendments two through five, which also passed.
This means that when the first (and only) private housing project with about 18 units gets under way, members of the Affordable Housing Committee, themselves, will verify the income eligibility of applicants for the two affordable units by scrutinizing the applicants’ tax returns. Those volunteer committee members will handle all the legal and financial real estate business and administrative tasks associated with affordable dwelling units created under the inclusionary zoning bylaw.
I’m not sure what should happen, legally, when a town meeting vote isn’t acted on, but we should amend the inclusionary housing unit bylaw at town meeting in May by voting “yes” on Article 33.
Other parts of the inclusionary housing unit bylaw aren’t consistent with federal and state fair-housing regulations and guidelines. The bylaw gives first preference (for affordable housing units created by inclusionary zoning) to people who’ve lived and worked in Hull for at least five years and to people who formerly lived in Hull for at least five years. The Executive Office of Housing & Livable Communities says, “Durational requirements related to local preferences, that is, how long an applicant has lived in or worked in the residency preference area, are not permitted in any case.” Fair-housing advocates understand that such a preference system may encourage favoritism and discrimination against minority groups and “outsiders.”
I wonder what version of the inclusionary housing unit bylaw was reviewed and approved without comment by the AG’s office. There’s a disclaimer in the bylaw (“unless otherwise prohibited by a federal or state agency under a financing or other subsidy program,”) so maybe the AG’s office knows the preferences described in the bylaw can’t be applied.
Apparently, it’s possible to design and implement a fair system that includes a local preference for affordable housing units created through local inclusionary zoning. But that system is supposed to be developed by a deliberative public body in open meetings and approved by a select board before inclusion in a zoning bylaw. Since the Affordable Housing Committee is the appropriate body to advise the select board on housing-related policy, I hope it’ll add this business to its agenda. In the meantime, the inclusionary housing unit bylaw should be amended because the preference language looks pretty problematic.
When I realized that inclusionary zoning bylaws normally apply in zoning districts that permit multi-family housing, since so much of Hull is zoned single-family (about 90%), I decided to research how many vacant private parcels are large enough for apartments and condos with 10 or more units. (Smaller developments don’t require any affordable dwelling units under the current bylaw.) I ignored the new MBTA multi-family overlay districts because the affordable unit requirement overrides local inclusionary zoning.
That’s how I discovered that the only developable private parcel in Hull large enough for a 10-plus unit housing project is at Cadish and Nantasket (near XYZ). I know which vacant private parcels are large enough (half an acre) for four-plus unit condos or apartments. And I know which private parcels are large enough for a big housing complex if redeveloped at some point down the road. Any way you look at it, there just aren’t that many properties that Hull’s inclusionary zoning bylaw, as it is, will ever impact.
Then I noticed that language in the inclusionary housing unit bylaw (two lines of text) suggests that the bylaw applies in all zoning districts, including single-family districts. The bylaw states, “The provisions of the bylaw is (sic) designed to: Increase the supply of affordable rental and ownership housing in the Town of Hull across all zoning districts.” How would an inclusionary zoning bylaw (that only applies to multi-family housing with 10-plus units) expand housing in districts that don’t allow multi-family developments? Accessory dwelling units (small units added to private homes) are allowed in single-family districts, but ADUs have nothing to do with inclusionary zoning.
When we voted for the inclusionary bylaw in 2023, did we vote to allow multi-family development in all zoning districts? I don’t think so, but I don’t understand why that language was included. The bylaw should be amended for the sake of clarity.
The inclusionary housing unit bylaw insures that the two affordable units created by the development at Cadish and Nantasket (the only developable private parcel in Hull large enough for 10-plus units) won’t go to low-income households. The bylaw says that if a housing project creates one or two affordable units, those units must go to moderate-income households (individuals making between $91,400 and $137,100 or couples making between $156,720 and $176,280 per year). The bylaw states that if a housing development produces three affordable units (and there are no vacant private parcels in Hull large enough for a condo or apartment complex with 30-plus units), only one will go to a low-income household. If Hull had any vacant private parcels large enough for 40-plus unit condos or apartments, only 25% of the units would go to low-income households. Effectively, Hull’s bylaw doesn’t serve anyone with low-income.
But even worse, the bylaw, itself, incorrectly defines “moderate” income. Federal and state government agencies define “affordable” for “low” income households as less than 80% area median income (AMI) – individuals making less than $91,400 per year or couples making less than $156,720 per year. A lot of us are surprised the government considers so much money “low-income.” But Hull’s inclusionary housing unit bylaw states that 50% to 80% of Boston AMI is a “moderate” income level. It’s rational – $57,125 to $91,400 seems like moderate income for an individual – but it’s legally and technically incorrect.
It’s important to keep in mind that housing units created for moderate-income households (more than 80% AMI) don’t count as subsidized housing inventory. Hull’s inclusionary housing unit bylaw will add zero affordable housing units to Hull’s tiny 1.66% affordable housing inventory. At the moment, Hull needs 418 additional affordable housing units to avoid Chapter 40B projects, but the inclusionary housing unit bylaw, as it is, will produce none.
The inclusionary housing unit bylaw needs to be amended. Vote “yes” on Article 33 at annual town meeting in May.
Lisa French
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
To the Editor:
Support Article 37 on the town meeting warrant.
Sometime in 2009-10, the former town manager (TM) attended a light board meeting and announced that he was going to charge HMLP $200,000 per year rent for three years for the siting of Hull Wind II at the landfill. This is in addition to $164,000 annual PILOT payment (payment in lieu of taxes). So, the three years of payments amounted to approximately $1.2 million.
The light board was astonished at such a proposal. They had long debates about this proposal and whether this was legal. TM wanted the light board to sign a document agreeing to this payment. Not one member would sign this document. You must understand that the light board currently has limited authority. They set electric rates and advise the strong town manager. They do not have the authority to hire an attorney. So, strong town manager took this money for three years.
This is a case where strong town manager acting as HMLP manager is not a good business plan. Who does she or he report to? Unfortunately, no one. This issue should have been addressed years ago. This is why Article 37 is on your warrant.
Does any other town department pay rent to the town for real estate they sit on – the sewer department, highway department, recreation department? I hope you can see what I am getting at, the answer is a resounding no!
If TM takes this year’s PILOT payment, which happens to be $200,000, the HMLP will be operating at a deficit. This is why this article is on the town meeting warrant. This is a stop-gap measure to prevent this from ever happening again on any future project that HMLP might build.
The opposition is saying that you would have to hire a business manager to run the light plant. This is not true. The current staff of four and two operating managers can handle this task. This is not a personal attack on current TM, this is for the survival of your HMLP in the years to come.
In closing, maybe if HMLP had that $600,000 the former strong town manager took for rent, the light board might not be looking at a rate hike.
Ratepayers, this is your public power electric company. Let’s keep it solvent for years to come. Don’t let the tail wag the dog. You, the ratepayer, are the dog. Please vote “yes” on Article 37.
Thank you for listening,
David Irwin
Former Light Board Member
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
By Carol Britton Meyer
The school committee addressed a full agenda this week, from holding a public hearing on the fiscal 2026 budget and further discussing the superintendent evaluation process to welcoming the new Hull Public Schools athletic director and responding to a request for a dog park near the high school.
For at least the third year in a row, there were no public comments during the hearing on the proposed $18.4-million budget, which represents a 3% – or $535,643 – increase over the fiscal 2025 budget figure.
During one of their occasional updates, state Sen. Patrick O’Connor and state Rep. Joan Meschino said that of the $58-billion state fiscal year 2025 budget, $7.01 million has been allocated to Hull and local organizations to date.
Chapter 70 education funding is at $4.08 million, with local aid totaling $2.6 million for the current year, with relatively small increases in both expected for fiscal 2026.
Local organizations benefitting from state funding include the Anchor of Hull and the Hull Lifesaving Museum, as well as the Hull Police Department.
Click here to read the full school budget proposal for FY26
Free school meal funding allocated to Hull was $241,683, along with funding for special education and special ed transportation, charter school reimbursement, and library aid.
Both legislators encouraged not only the school committee with education-related issues and concerns but also residents to contact their office if in need of assistance.
Contact Meschino’s office at 617-722-2092 or O’Connor’s office at 617-722-1646, or by email at Joan.Meschino@MAHouse.gov or Patrick.O’Connor@masenate.gov.
The presentation is posted on the Hull Public Schools website.
In other business…
• Superintendent of Schools Michael Jette introduced new Athletic Director Benjamin Kistner “following an exhaustive search process. He’s now in week three, and we’re happy to have him onboard at the start of Spring sports,” he said.
The former athletic director for Holbrook Middle-High School, where he was also a teacher, Kistner said he will be able to focus solely on his new position as athletic director in Hull.
“Sixty-five percent of our student population are athletes,” Kistner noted. His first priority is to get to know them. He is also considering asking past and present student athletes to take a survey about their experiences, including asking former athletes why they are no longer on a team.
“I’m excited to be here,” Kistner said. “I’m a fireball of energy [and look forward] to getting started and figuring out what the successes and challenges will be.”
• Jette reported progress on exploring coastal partnerships in addition to current participation in the Cohasset Center for Student Coastal Research in the summer months and in the Hull Lifesaving Museum/Hull High School boatbuilding program.
“Next steps include sitting down with curriculum leaders to discuss various possibilities and to explore whether there may be grant funding available,” he said.
• The committee and Jette also discussed the superintendent evaluation process that includes a progress report on his year-one goals. Each committee member will fill out an evaluation form and without sharing it with fellow members, submit the forms to Maggie Ollerhead in the superintendent’s office, who will compile the completed forms into one document.
Jette presented his entry plan for his first year on the job to the school committee last September, including a commitment to “looking, listening, and learning” to help set up HPS for “success for the next decade.”
Jette has a three-year contract, with an annual salary of $180,000. The public evaluation is scheduled for April 28.
• A letter signed by Jette was sent to resident David Irwin, who earlier floated the idea of locating a dog park on town-owned land between Finlayson Field at the high school and Hull Gut at the site of the former windmill, asking for answers to a number of questions before the school committee makes a final determination.
These included how the dog park would he contained and maintained; would new fencing be added parallel to the field fence or would the existing fence serve as containment for the park -- and if so, who would be responsible for repairs; would the park restrict potential travel outside the field from the Gut to the back of the high school; and who would mow and otherwise care for the dog park?
Other concerns were whether parking issues would “put pressure” on Shipwreck’d and the school and commuter lots and maintaining park cleanliness, including disposal of animal waste and other trash, since the field is used by students and the public throughout the year.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
Click here for the warrant for the May 5, 2025 Annual Town Meeting
• Town Departments at Work: The role of each part of your local government
Use the links below to submit your news to us or email: news@hulltimes.com
Send sports news and photos to: sports@hulltimes.com
Press Release
Letter to the Editor
Community Calendar
Submit an Obituary
Announcements
Submit a Photo
Classified Ad
To reach the advertising department: office@hulltimes.com
