SWAMPSCOTT — After hearing nearly unanimous public opposition to residential development at the Hawthorne property Tuesday night, the Select Board voted 3-2 to exclude housing from the site’s long-term request for proposals.

The discussion has been a recurring item on the Select Board’s agenda since July, with members debating elements of the future RFP, including residential versus nonresidential uses, the amount of open space, parking, and reuse of the existing building. This week, multiple residents spoke in favor of open space and in opposition of residential use of the property.

Cathie Smith Skaletsky, a fourth-generation Swampscott resident, urged the board to preserve both the property’s historic character and its public purpose.

“That building is spectacular. It lends itself to so many opportunities,” Smith said. “I just feel so heartfelt as I’m standing here and saying, please, please do not build condominiums. We don’t need more condominiums. We need something that’s fun and family-oriented.”

Tania Lillak, chair of the Open Space and Recreation Planning Committee, urged the board to dedicate at least 70% of the property to open space. She argued parks often provide long-term economic benefits that go unnoticed while preserving a community’s character.

“Once the space is developed, it rarely goes back to open space,” Lillak said. “Let’s do the right thing for the town of Swampscott and give our residents a beautiful waterfront park for many generations to enjoy.”

Toni Bandrowicz, who serves on several town committees, including the Open Space and Recreation Planning Committee and Conservation Commission, echoed those concerns by reflecting on her own experience growing up in suburban New York, as her hometown became more developed and crowded.

Bandrowicz said Swampscott’s coastline is one of the town’s defining features and argued the Hawthorne represents a rare opportunity to preserve it.

“What makes Swampscott unique is its seacoast,” she said. “The town has a chance with this waterfront property to give present and, more importantly, future residents the gift of coastal open space.”

Several residents also criticized the town’s public outreach surrounding the ongoing Hawthorne discussions. Marianne McDermott argued important meetings deserved greater publicity and questioned whether the Select Board alone should determine the property’s long-term future.

“We approved the purchase based on a specific public purpose. We were told this is for the public good,” McDermott said. “If the Select Board can change the purpose of the use of this land … then Town Meeting should once again be involved in that decision making.”

Brian Watson, who served as the chair of the Hawthorne Reuse Advisory Committee, also spoke. Although he said he was ambivalent to residential use on the site, Watson believed the town should avoid automatically dismissing proposals that include a limited residential component, arguing in favor of a mixed-use space that included both open space and some type of development.

“I’d like to see our town and our Select Board get away from thinking that it’s either all condos or all park, or it’s one thing or the other,” Watson said, suggesting the board could instead tightly limit any residential component while maintaining a primarily public use.

Before beginning the board’s deliberations, Chair Katie Phelan pushed back on suggestions that the town had not been transparent throughout the process, noting the Hawthorne has been the subject of public meetings, surveys, and committee discussions for more than a year.

“We are doing the very best to take all the information available to us and come to a conclusion,” Phelan said, adding that the board posts agendas for all its meetings in advance and recordings are available on the town’s website.

Select Board member Danielle Leonard said she believed the board had reached the point where it needed to establish clear direction.

“I know in my gut that it shouldn’t have residential. … Let’s not beat around the bush anymore. At some point, this body has to make a decision,” she said. “Sometimes the right thing to do is not always maybe the most logical or the most profitable. But people have spoken about it enough to me that I think it’s one of things we should really consider doing tonight.”

Board member Ted Dooley said he also did not support residential development at the Hawthorne but argued against prohibiting it outright. He said he worried a proposal centered on open space and a relatively small commercial footprint might not be financially viable without significant public investment, leaving the town with few or no workable responses to the RFP. Dooley did encourage the board to reach a vote on the item to best move forward with the RFP process.

Following the discussion, the board approved MaryEllen Fletcher’s motion on a 3-2 vote, removing residential development from the Hawthorne property’s long-term request for proposals. Fletcher, Leonard, and Wayne Spritz voted in favor, while Dooley and Phelan voted against.