Selectmen have a possible resolution to the 11-year controversy surrounding a five-acre piece of land on Swifts Beach.

Selectmen plan to ask Fall Town Meeting voters to change the use of a 5.3 acre parcel of land from "general municipal purposes," to "beach and recreational use in perpetuity."

Little has been done to the property since the town acquired it 11 years ago, but both the town and Swifts Beach residents want to make sure the land is preserved and free of future development.

In 2003, Town Meeting gave Selectmen permission to acquire the land at Swifts Beach Road and Wankinco Avenue for "general municipal purposes." The previous owner of the parcel had expressed interest in building a two-family home on the property. Selectmen at the time expressed the desire to expand access to the public beach that is adjacent to the land.

Selectman Peter Teitelbaum said the proposed Town Meeting article would, "knock out any possibility of buildings going on there . . . which is not going to happen anyway."

"The best way to hit this ball down the middle is simply to go to Town Meeting and take it out of 'general municipal purposes,' under which the property was originally taken in 2003, and rededicate it," he said.

Last week, the Swifts Beach Improvement Association asked for the support of Selectmen in applying for a conservation restriction on the parcel. The group said according to a 2007 Town Meeting vote, a conservation restriction must be put on the land at some point.

The Improvement Association would jointly apply with the town Conservation Commission for the restriction, which would prevent future development on the land. The Improvement Association threatened the town with a lawsuit if Selectmen didn't support its application.

Teitelbaum said while the Improvement Association threatened Selectmen with a taxpayer lawsuit if they don't comply, he could envision a taxpayer lawsuit coming from another group in town if they did support the application. Asking voters at the Oct. 27 Fall Town Meeting to change the use of the property would alleviate the need for a conservation restriction.

"It takes what has been a controversial issue for over a decade in this town and solves it," said Teitelbaum.