Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 2-8-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board 2-8-22 Minutes

Please note this transcription is unofficial. If you find an error, use the contact page to notify Plymouth On The Record.

[0:00:11]

Patrick Flaherty:

In accordance with S2475, and pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting may do so in the following manner: tune into PACTV government cable access channels, Comcast Channel 15 or Verizon Channel 47 and watch the meeting as it is aired live, or watch the meeting live via the PACTV website at PACTV.org. Members of the public who wish to participate in the meeting may do so in the following manner:

Remote Participation: please go to the Town website under the Select Board page and click on the Zoom Webinar Registration box or simply click on the link below, which is in the agenda.

Betty Cavacco:

Hey, thank you and we’ll call this meeting to order. Executive session was not had this afternoon because we didn’t have all the information. Chris Badot, could you please send the copy of the agenda to Chairman Quintal. He’s having technical difficulty so he had to go into another computer.

The first order on the agenda is the Harbor Committee. If you could look those folks in, Chris.

Oh, and we have Mr. Brindisi joining us.

I think Mr. Quintal is in. Are you there, Dick? All right. Okay.

Dick Quintal:

Can you hear me, Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Just take it from here. Go ahead until I get on the screen. Go ahead, please.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. No problem. So, we have the Harbor Committee that is joining us. Phil Chandler who is the Chairman of the Harbor Committee. We have a couple of the commercial mussel folks we met last week. Phil, did you want to discuss what we are moving forward with?

Phil Chandler

Absolutely! Can you hear me?

Betty Cavacco:

We can hear you. Do you have video or not?

Phil Chandler:

I do, but this is what it looks like. I’m up with my son at the Boston Gardens, so anyhow. So, the things that we have been working on were a few folds. One is that on the dredging and when we had reached back out the DMF and particularly Dan McKiernan and his staff was that they had advised us to move forward with what the original findings were and that they still supported their original opinion to us. So, we advised no change to what the Select Board had decided last fall, as far as the mussel dredging goes. Did you want to hear all that separately from the one department committee?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure.

Phil Chandler:

Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

Phil, I don’t know if folks have the original dredging motion. But the Plymouth Harbor Committee voted unanimously to improve the recommendations of the Massachusetts Division of Marine & Fisheries as it relates to the continuation of the Select Board previous parameters for mussel dredging in Plymouth.

As Mr. Chandler had said, we reached out to Dan McKiernan who is the Head of the Massachusetts Division of Marine & Fisheries. And now, we would like to continue on the more permanent mussel dredging licenses. I do understand that there are also a couple additional folks that were coming forward.

[0:05:04]

Betty Cavacco:

I believe Mr. Reynold’s had sent us an email requesting a mussel license but for the dredging in general, I’ll make a motion to move forward with our original motion back in fall. Harry?

Harry Helm:

Betty, for the folks viewing at home, could you describe that original motion?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure. So, what the motion was it was specific areas and – correct me if I’m wrong, Phil – it was specific areas. It was up to 300 bushels. I believed it was up to 3 to 5 licenses and right now, we only have 2. So, they are out there. They want to get back out there. I can express the importance of moving this forward permanently of course, unless there’s another change. One of the things that the mussel folks have noticed is that where their licenses are in a temporary basis, it’s a little bit harder for them to market. So, once we move this motion forward tonight, I believe the marketing will be much easier for them. Did we lose you, Harry?

Harry Helm:

No, I just have to mute on a regular basis.

Betty Cavacco:

So, with that, I’d like to make the motion. Actually, I made the motion. Is there a second?

Patrick Flaherty:

I just want to know if we can have a chance to hear from the Harbormaster and I don’t know if that can happen after we make the motion or not, but I think their hand was raised and obviously, he’ll probably has some input on that, if that’s all right.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Chad Hunter:

You guys have to make the motion and maybe in the discussion then I can kind of speak to it.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, is there a second? You’re muted. Oh, Harry. Discussion? Chad?

Chad Hunter:

Thank you. I guess, I got a couple of questions. So, there was a memo that was sent to the board November 22nd. I think we were all in the agenda I think for the 30th of November but that was hold. Are those the regulations that we are approving?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Chad Hunter:

Okay. I can go through them if the board wants me to, but if you have that memo and the material and you don’t want to hear it then I just wanted to make sure those were the regulations that were being approved.

Betty Cavacco:

You can go through them.

Chad Hunter:

Another concern also is a change to the Recreational Shellfish Regulations, which were set with the memo at the time. We could do that separately in another meeting, if everybody remembers that was one of the primary issues that kind of stopped the mussel dredging at one point is because our Recreational Shellfish Regulations actually prevented commercial fisheries. So, at some point, if the commercial mussel regulations are approved then I could always come back on another day to present the edits, which were pretty minor to the recreational regulations.

Betty Cavacco:

I think that would probably be best, because we don’t have those changes in front of us and the motion is for the specific commercial mussel dredging. Unless Mr. Chandler has any other information regarding that, I’m thinking that we should probably bring that back because I don’t even think the board is aware and November was a long time ago. But if you want to go through the commercial dredging that we are voting on this evening, Chad, you can go through those bullet points or Phil.

Chad Hunter:   

If Phil wants to go through it, that’s fine but I’ll at least probably get a venue and that might be a little difficult. I have the memo right in front of me and I’ll just be brief. So, it was a recommendation for no-residency requirement and the next was the number of permits that were to be issued.

[0:10:06]

Chad Hunter:

Initially, the town presented 3 to 5 permits initially and that could either go up or down depending on the landings. Harbor Committee approved the limited entry of 5 permits. The recommendation number 3 was to restrict the mussel fishery to areas MB1, CCB41.2, CCB41, CCB39 and water deeper than 20 feet at minimal water. These are all shellfish classification areas that are approved by the Division of Marine Fisheries and we use those areas to determine the areas that would be available for mussel dredging. The Harbor Committee did approve that recommendation number three.

Recommendation #4 was a fee for the commercial permit. Harbor Committee approved a $300 for resident, $500 for non-resident. There was a recommendation number #5 which was a 2-inch minimum size limit that was also approved by the Harbor Committee. As far as daily landing limits, there were some concerns about the 300 bushels per day but ultimately, the Harbor Committee recommend leaving the 300-bushel limit per license per day.     

Recommendation #7: monthly landing report submitted to the shelf responsible, that was also approved. And then in that memo, it does speak to changing the recreational shellfish regulations to come adopt to these changes. That’s it.

Betty Cavacco:

Any questions or anybody from Harbor Committee who like to speak?

Phil Chandler:

I’m all set with Chad who just presented in with moving forward to support the original votes.

Betty Cavacco:

And Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Is it the original without the recreational? Because I know there’s no materials in their packet so I’m just going to go off what Chad is saying. Is that what our vote is? So, everything that was in November except that last bullet?

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah, we’ll take the recreational up at another meeting. In that way, Chad can put his edits in and the Harbor Committee can actually weigh in on it. I believe we’re meeting tomorrow night.

Patrick Flaherty:

Got it. And just one last quick question for Chad. I know that there’s been a lot of learning going through this process over a year. Is there anything that you still have concerns, reservations about all these or are you feeling good about these regulations?

Chad Hunter:

When we were going to present on the 30th, we had a presentation set that included a survey that we did because if you remember in August, the board wanted us to go back and take a look to see what were sort of the health of this stock at least in the area that was being fished. So, we did a survey and there’s mussels there. I think we only did a small portion of the entire bay system to kind of look at this one area that was being targeted. I think there’s always concerns about sustainability and kind of keeping this going. But I think it’s something that we have to keep an eye on and see how the landings look. If all of a sudden, the boats are having trouble coming in with the landing limit or that starts to die off, we’ll probably have to go back and take a look at the number of licenses and the quantities that are allowed to be landed. But when we designated the areas that are sort of you guys would approve tonight, it also leads other areas protected. So, there will be still some stock in the bay system. So, even if one area is fished to a point where it’s not commercially viable anymore, there’s other areas that still have mussel stock and they’ll sort of replenish those areas.

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Unanimous.

[0:15:01]

Betty Cavacco:

Now, we’ll proceed on to the other recommendations that the Harbor Committee voted on. If Phil or John, if you’d like me to read them, I will and we can motion them separately or Phil, you can explain them a little bit if you’re able to.

Phil Chandler:

Sure. If you could actually motion them all together, that would be great because that’s the way that we had voted up on the Subcommittee and the Harbor Committee.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct! So, I’ll read them for the board and for the folks at home. Here’s the motion from the Plymouth Harbor Committee to support Subcommittee recommendations. April 15th will be opening day for Plymouth Harbor. Initially, the committee has outlined the following to be completed for our harbor to be ready for the spring-summer season. The first one is seasonal docks in place including six-pack charter and town lounge docks. The second is the pump-out station will be operational. The third is the pump-out boat operational, the fourth is the harbor entrance sign and this is a sign that was made by the Harbor Committee, one of our members of the Harbor Committee. And it’s at the bowie. It’s in the entrance to the harbor from the water. The wash down hoses will be ready and the maritime building facilities will be ready and the hours will be posted.

In addition, the committee voted unanimously to have the Plymouth Harbor Committee review operations and financials to further land support to the Plymouth Select Board and advise accordingly. I’d like to make a motion to move those and if I could have a second, please.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second it.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? Anybody from the Harbor Committee? And Mr. Hunter, I believe has a comment.

Chad Hunter:

I’d like to set some expectations for these recommendations. We had a Harbor Committee meeting last Thursday and these were presented. The Subcommittee never reached out to this office to discuss some of these benchmarks that they wanted to set. Most of the time, on a normal year, the docks would be in by April 13th, but obviously with the extensive dredging that went on and a complete redesign of the floating docks that occurred over near Town Wharf. I hope everything is in for April 15th, but I’m not sure that’s going to be the case. This is not a normal year. The floats aren’t just going back to where they were originally placed. It’s pile supported instead of bottom ward. There’s going to be work that needs to be done to the floats to make it really fit and work. So, that’s a bit of a concern on my side.

The pump out stations are up and running by April 15th. The pump-out boat on the other hand, that’s a seasonally staffed operation. So, our seasonal staff doesn’t start probably until May 15th. And also, the demand for the pump-out boat in late April, early May is very limited because of the amount of recreational boats that are in the harbor at that time.

A lot of these benchmarks depend on whether it is well. So, we do have to be careful not to put things in too early because ultimately, we want results. We still have storms in early April. And in one storm, we can have significant damage prior to the season that then needs to be addressed before the boat start to go in.

So, I just wanted to say this. Obviously, we’ll do everything we can to try and meet these benchmarks but I guess this year is somewhat unique in the fact that we have two major construction projects happening in the harbor and a complete redesign of the floating dock system. So, I just wanted to make you aware of that.

[0:20:03]

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, of course, everybody on this committee is reasonable. Unless there’s some kind of issue that it’s not communicated, no one is going to think or expect anything to happen if it’s some kind of mother nature, freak of nature or there’s something that prohibits that. But I think the expectation is that we’d be communicated well in advance before any of that happens.

So, the pump-out boat where you say there’s not a lot of use, I would think that we have four harbormasters or assistant harbormasters. Isn’t that a possibility that one of them could do it until we got our seasonal help?

Chad Hunter:

Yeah, usually, we’ll assist with shoreside. And like I said, the boat won’t usually go in until at least May 15th in preparation for Memorial Day. So, staffing wise, yes, I think if there’s a request. But again, April 15th, the lobstermen start to go in, the commercial users are not requesting those services. It’s mostly recreational boats. So, we’ll usually assist with shoreside.

Betty Cavacco:

Phil, do you have any?   

Phil Chandler:

Yes. So, I certainly agree with Chad that there are variables and obviously, it’s going to change year to year. I don’t really know if there’s such thing as a regular year anymore. But when it comes to the pump-out boat, our concern and the reason why we wanted them ready for April 15th was that when you look at the no-discharge zones and the agreements that we have, there’s no date on it. So, to me, if there are boats in the harbor and they do have heads on board, that boat should be ready. Obviously, the convenience of the pump-out boat is important to facilitate that need. So, I think for us, it was more about setting again the beginning, opening day not to say that there’s going to be a rush or a flair activity for the boat but just to make sure that it’s ready on April 15th.

Betty Cavacco:

Any other questions or discussion? Harry?

Harry Helm:

Just really quickly. Mr. Hunter, what would be your comment back to Mr. Chandler? Because it seems to me that having all of these ready for April 15th, it was kind of stated that date is sort of a soft date. But Mr. Chandler doesn’t seem to agree that at least for the pump-out boat that it is a soft date. 

Chad Hunter:

Yes. So, in the off season or colder seasons, let’s call them early spring, late fall, there is a shoreside pump-out available. So, it’s available free to all boaters, free of charge. They’re able to come to the dock, pump out their sewage and be in compliance for the no-discharge area.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Mr. Chandler, how do you feel about that statement from Mr. Hunter?

Phil Chandler:

I mean, he is correct that that is available but it still is my opinion that convenience is one of the things that makes compliance a lot higher. So, when it comes to something like a pump-out boat where I like to see the soon as anything with the head hits the harbor that that boat is available. But he is right. If the dock side is available, there is a way to do it, but I’m not really quite sure. We’re trying to ensure compliance that the pump-out boat to me is crucial doing that. But again, the way that I look at it is that the pump out is ready on April 15th, which it’s ready but if it’s not used for a week or two, I’m fine with that too. It’s just again, having the boat ready.

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, the commercial season for some of these folks like Chad said that the lobsterman are putting in their gear. I mean, a commercial haddock starts April 1st, so these people are commercial fishermen, that’s their business. So, I think like Phil said making it as convenient as we can for these folks does help with compliance. I mean, going up to the dock, if it’s three boats waiting to get pumped out at the dock, it doesn’t really make for a pleasant wait for anybody. I agree and stand by the Harbor Committee saying that it should be ready on April 15th. Patrick?

[0:25:24]

Patrick Flaherty:

Chad, you said something that was a little surprising to me. You said that you hadn’t conferred with the Harbor Committee on any of these items. Is that really the case that this is the first time this is the discussion on these proposals?

Chad Hunter:

So, the proposals from the Subcommittee were presented at the Harbor Committee meeting last Thursday. That was the first time I heard them. I think all of these topics maybe we have discussed over the years at one time or another. But as far as having a timeline of April 15th, I do wish somebody had sort of brought me into the conversation to maybe at least talk about some of the limitations on some of these. I know at least one Harbor Committee member who spent plenty years in the harbor kind of asked that question kind of maybe thought these dates were a little early given the weather and past crackers. I was sort of rubbing to the discussion so we could have come to a better agreement on dates.

Patrick Flaherty:

I understand because I don’t know if I’m comfortable if I’m trying to be the one who decides. We have one on one side, one on the other side then we’re going to be the decision. I’ll speak for myself, I’m going to make a decision that is going to affect the operations of how the harbor runs.

Phil Chandler:

I’d like to respond to that. Can I have a moment?

Patrick Flaherty:

Sure thing.

Phil Chandler:

Perfect. So, as it went, the Subcommittee is just reviewing the 5-year plan for the Harbor Committee for additions, deletions, improvements. When we identified some of the things that we want to get dumped, the Subcommittee brought that to the Harbor Committee. We talked about it much like we’re talking about right now and it was voted upon as described in the packet. It was a unanimous decision.

Now, at the point of the Harbor Committee, it could have been shut down. It could have been a split vote. It could have been many things that happened. But as the Harbor Committee is there to come up with recommendations and advise the Select Board directly, the Harbormaster has a seat on the Harbor Committee but not a voting seat. But nonetheless, there was an open forum, which Chad said tonight, he said then and the Harbor Committee moved forward to vote again unanimously to adopt them. So, it was said, by you saying it’s not me against Chad, it’s the full Harbor Committee which voted on this and the recommendations came from the Subcommittee that also are stakeholders that aren’t on the Harbor Committee and it went forward.

Certainly, there’s nothing on the Harbor Committee that we want to have a relationship that we would undermine the Harbormaster in any way. But yet, we support Chad wholeheartedly but at the same time, there are going to be times where we don’t agree and we ran into this when we were doing re-site for the aquaculture and a few other times. And that’s fine. We don’t have to agree. But what we have to do is what we’re looking at tonight is the advice put forward by all of these people that again, our stakeholders in the harbor and this is what they’ve decided to put forward.

Dick Quintal:

Patrick, are you all set?

Patrick Flaherty:

The only thing I’ll say is that there wasn’t any material in our packet about this. It was an email that had the list written out there so it wasn’t like a recommendation or any other kind of background, Phil or anyone who’s listening. So, that’s kind of where we’re understanding both sides of the story.

Phil Chandler:

But sometimes it is very simple and that’s really what it was. It’s really simple stuff. There’s no real background to it. You know what I mean? Pump-out boats has been in existence. We want them to a no-discharge zone probably over a decade ago. I mean, there’s really no background. We’re just trying to get stuff implemented. That’s all.

[0:29:57]

Patrick Flaherty:

No, understood and that’s fair enough. I don’t think anyone is trying to be contrary. It’s just that if it was all super simple, we wouldn’t have 20 people looking at it and going around on this. I’m not an expert on this. I’m not going to say that I agree or disagree if it’s unanimous to the Harbor Committee but if I’m hearing these operational issues with potentially implementing dates, that’s the only thing I just wanted to have input from the town professional to know if there’s something, you know, there’s more staff, is it more funding? Is something else have to be given up to do this? I don’t know those answers. That’s why I’m trying to suss out with what the Harbormaster has to say.                                                                                         

Dick Quintal:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

I understand Patrick’s concerns. However, I do feel that the email did clearly say what the Subcommittee recommendations were. So, I’m pretty clear on that. I mean, this is a cooperative adventure together with the harbormaster and the Harbor Committee and from what I’m hearing is the harbormaster is not disagreeing with these dates and Chad, feel free to tell me if I’m interpreting you incorrectly, that you would like in the motion some sort of leeway to deal with possible delays that are of no control of the harbormaster. Am I correct?

Chad Hunter:

Yes. So, I think all of these items occur reach year. Obviously, if I look back to last year, floats were in April 13th. It’s just the way the weather, the tide and the schedule the crane based on those parameters to get the floats in and get them assembled. This year, we have a dredge project which is just wrapping up. It put in a bunch of new piles to reconfigure the float system. All I wanted to sort of get everybody here to understand was those expectations. This year is quite different in the fact that we have two large scale construction projects going on right now as we speak. And ultimately, that is going to change the configurations. So, I don’t really quite understand why a date is being set. These things will happen and we’ll make it work for any of the users whether it’s the commercial voters, the recreational voters, all of these things will work for those people. I’m a little taken aback that a date has been set, which is quite early and there was no communication with myself and the staff to maybe talk about some of these challenges prior to getting to the board and the Harbor Committee to set an April 15th date.

Phil Chandler:

Chad, actually not correct because they were brought to the Harbor Committee of which you are a member of the Harbor Committee and that’s where we discussed it. We did hear and we did talk about and we thought this all May 15th, which was too late because if anything went wrong with this date, there was any other variables then all of a sudden, you’re looking at the beginning of June. Again, there was a lot of people involve in this discussion. So, that was exactly where it came up before it went to the Select Board. So, I don’t think that’s correctly saying.

Dick Quintal:

Betty?        

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, this is simple. It doesn’t have to be this difficult. If there’s an issue then the harbormaster works with the Harbor Committee, they figure something out, they make recommendations if something isn’t working and then it comes to the Select Board. The Harbor Committee voted unanimously for these dates. Yes, there was quite a bit of discussion about the dates and Chad’s already provided information that most docks are in or all these issues that we discussed are available some time mid-March. The point of the matter is that it was voted on unanimously.

[0:35:05]

Betty Cavacco:

If we’re in the middle of a Nor’easter for a week, no one is going to say, “Chad, get out there and make sure those docks are in because it says so.” I mean, I think they have been more than reasonable with these discussions and what the expectations are for our commercial fleet. It’s really just that simple.

Dick Quintal:

Well, is it a fact of us Chad not being able to say like you say for some unforeseen instance that there’s more to be done? It sounds like that’s what your concern would be. So, why couldn’t we say in somebody’s motion while we made it because I forgot it already, “We recommend these dates.” I mean, that doesn’t mean it is the date but it also gives Chad some room and he can come back for the board if he feels that he needs time on something or why something isn’t done and he can go to the Harbor Committee, sit with the Harbor Committee because he’s on it. I mean, that’s just a recommendation for me. I mean, I don’t want to vote something so it’s a rule and it’s a demand. I mean, I think we all want to get to the same place at the end of the day. I mean, it’s the same thing–

Phil Chandler:

May I speak again?

Dick Quintal:

Yes, please.

Phil Chandler:

I agree. I mean, just hearing all of this. It was an extremely simple thing that we were proposing and I think that it’s being made into something extremely difficult and it isn’t. I mean, there was no repercussions. It’s not like we set opening day as April 15. If I come April 16th, the things are done. I mean, to me, this has taken a very negative tone when it was really positive for us. We’re like April 15th is our opening day, let’s get ramped up, let’s get ready. That’s when we want to be opened for business in Plymouth Harbor. It was all meant to be positive. I mean, we all understand the variables. All we’re trying to do is to set up an expectation of an opening day and what should be opened on that day.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Thank you. Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

I can’t agree more with Phil too. We’ve set a date, we’re going to vote on it tonight and that’s the date and everybody is going to work to accomplish that date. If something comes up, whether it’s weather or staffing, bring it before the board. It might get delayed a little bit, but at least right now, that’s the date we’re looking for, April 15th. Everybody is going to work at to accomplish this to make that the opening day. So, if something comes up, like I said, you come before the board and let us know what the problem is in there. Everybody is reasonable then we’ll work it out. So, I don’t think there’s a big deal.

Dick Quintal:             

All right. I’ll just hop in here because I’m having difficulties here with technology. Somebody made a motion, someone second it.

Charlie Bletzer:

I second, yeah.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. On the recommendations that was sent out to the board, correct?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Any more discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

Phil Chandler:

Thank you everyone.

Betty Cavacco:

Thanks, Phil.

Dick Quintal:

Next on the docket is the cemetery update and Lee, would that be Mr. King or is that going to be JB?

Lee Hartman:

I believe it would be both of them. They’re here. I mean, this is a fairly simple one. JB, do you want to take this or do you want me to?

Jonathan Beder:

I’ll jump right everybody and then I’ll turn it over to Kenny King in a second.

Dick Quintal:

Please hold on one second, JB. Good evening. Welcome. I just want to explain to the people watching and to the new board members that approximately, I don’t know a year ago, it brought to my attention that the cemeteries were in dire need of being full. So, we’ve set up a committee. I’ve been on the committee. I’ve been the liaison and we’ve met regularly with Kenny and JB and Lee and some others. So, we come to the conclusion pretty much that they have that we have maybe left with a space.

[0:40:06]

Dick Quintal:

Some of them may not have been watching the meeting, Mass General Laws require us to bury our citizens. I read it one night or maybe a year ago. So, we’ve been meeting regular. This is what they’ve come up to. We’re going to need some immediate action. So, stay tuned. We can ask questions later. Welcome, JB.

Jonathan Beder:

Hey, good evening, everybody. Again, JB, Jonathan Beder, Director of Public Works. I’m here with Kenny King, your Cemetery and Crematory Superintendent. We’re here to have a very brief discussion on lot sales and where we are. Just the status for your 5 active cemeteries. Again, as Dick had mentioned, we’ve been working at this for a year. In the coming weeks, coming months, DPW is going to be in front of the Select Board every now and again, just to do a couple things in terms of housekeeping for the cemeteries. Eventually, we will be back presenting plans for new cemetery space. We have to go town meeting to really acquire some much-needed land to really increase the amount of lots we do have. So, with that, I’m going to turn over to Kenny. Kenny is going to go in to some details in terms of restricting lots so we can kind of hold pace if you would and then we’ll come back in a couple of weeks to summarize that. Like I said before, we’ll be back in front of you routinely just to make sure we can keep up with demand in the town. And then after that, we’ll answer your questions. Okay? Kenny, are you there?

Kenneth King:

Yes. Can everyone hear me?

Dick Quintal:

Yes.

Harry Helm:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Welcome.

Kenneth King:

Thank you. So, tonight, I’m going to come for your support for a temporary restriction access. We currently are running out of space. We sell a lot of lots every single year for some crema. But the only thing we can do is slow down the sales until we have another cemetery in place. The last couple of years, I haven’t seen available lots in Cedarville, Manomet, the Chiltonville Cemetery. I see in Vine Hills. We do have some options. We’ve been fortunate to have these many active cemeteries to put families where they’ve grown up or where they want to be next to relatives. But this is just a temporary measure to get us in a better position so we can later on lift it and sell lots again on a regular basis. I believe that if we did this, we would have about three years maybe even four if we just did pre-need burial space. I’d be happy to answer any questions anyone has.

Dick Quintal:

JB and then Betty.

Jonathan Beder:

Just to add a little bit more detail to the board in terms of numbers. This is an estimate and approximate: Vine Hills, we have approximately 230, Manomet, we have approximately 48 cremate, Cedarville approximately 25 and then Chiltonville, we have about 48 with the new niche walls. Kenny put a recommendation together to me back in January, the board has that, where he’s looking for support from the board for sales for immediate burials only coming from request from a funeral director or at Kenny’s discretion, Kenny the superintendent. So, that’s where we’re looking for really to kind of slow things down until we can catch up in terms of adding more cemetery space. 

Dick Quintal:

Harry?             

Harry Helm:

Question, if our goal is to slow down the purchase of lots because we’re running out. From what I read, it’s been noted that because our non-resident lots were cheaper than surrounding areas, people are actually coming from outside of Plymouth to purchase lots. Two questions on that, can you restrict our cemeteries to only residents? Number two, if we do have an issue with non-residents purchasing lots, why are we only proposing bringing it to the same average of surrounding towns? Why aren’t we proposing raising it to be more expensive for non-residents to the average of surrounding towns?

[0:45:13]

Kenneth King

To answer that question, our lot prices are around resident and non-resident, from what I see, are on the lower end. A lot of people would come in and look at what we have to offer and that they’re happy with our lots because all of the knickknacks. They’d go visit other cemeteries and they’ll come back and visit us and they realize that our cost is a half of what other cemeteries are charging and sometimes more than double. So, we could make a recommendation that we do not allow non-resident sales. I think I’ve increased it pretty much on average what most other towns charge non-residents. There are sometimes around us that have a non-resident restriction or you’ve had to pay taxes or been a resident for 10 years. The issue is with people who grew up in Plymouth who would like to be buried in Plymouth. And so, that’s the issue. They might have paid taxes for 30 years and then move to Florida and then they just want to be buried in Plymouth. Lately, we’ve had a lot of residents from Carver coming to our cemetery and buying lots. They have different reasons but I believe that our lot prices being as cheap as they are has been a huge issue.

Dick Quintal:

Just so the board knows, we’re not talking prices tonight. That has to be advertised in public, which it has been and will be taking it up I believe it’s next week. Is it, Chris and Lee? Okay. So, that’s–

Christopher Badot:

It’s the 22nd.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Harry and then Charlie.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, just to follow up. Mr. King, I understand but my question about the pricing, I know we’re not talking about pricing tonight but we will be so just preview of coming attraction. Why if non-residents, people from Carver, let’s say or Kingston buying lots in our cemetery is a problem then why are we only proposing bringing our price? I understand we’re already low but why are we only bringing it up to the average of surrounding towns? Why aren’t you proposing that we bring it up above the average of surrounding towns?

Dick Quintal:

JB, you have your hand up.

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah. I do believe the board has the recommended rates. Again, as the Chairman just referenced to Lee, we have to go through a public hearing process, advertise for two weeks so we would back to do this in terms of recommendations and approvals. But that’s what we’re showing, Harry. We’re showing a more than doubling for non-resident rates in our recommendations to the board.

Harry Helm:

I understand that, but what I’m seeing recommendations that you were asking for the same rate as the average of surrounding towns. I guess, this will be a discussion because I’m bringing them up again. Why aren’t you recommending higher than 2400, which is the average of surrounding towns? Why is it the 2600, 2800 if people from surrounding towns are buying our lots?

Jonathan Beder:

Again, these numbers were kind of discussed with the Cemetery Committee and Kenny and that’s what the group felt comfortable with in terms of holding that cost with those other towns, Harry. That’s why the recommendation came forth. But again, we can discuss that when we’re back in a couple of weeks.

Dick Quintal:

Yup. This is where I came from and I see what you’re saying, Harry. But we have a lot of people that we call snow birds and moved to Florida, they might move somewhere else and then the time has come and they want to come back to their hometown like I would. If I was to leave Plymouth then I think I should have the right to come back here and–you know what I mean? And that’s where I just agreed with that statement but something we could hash out. Harry then Betty. I mean, not Harry. Charlie, sorry.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to talk price tonight because I know that’s not what we’re doing but I have a question. I know you’ve been working on trying to acquire more cemetery space. I know you’re working on it. I have a question for you. How close are we to acquiring more space? And once we do acquire the property, and JB, this might be a question for you or Kenny, how long will it take to take that land and make it a cemetery? In other words, how far are we right now away from having another cemetery for Plymouth?

[0:50:13]

Jonathan Beder:

I’ll jump right in that one, Charlie. I think that’s–

Charlie Bletzer:

Maybe I’ll finish why I’m saying this. It’s pretty scary when you get to the position, I went through it not with my own parents but when my mother-in-law passed. She lived in a town and the cemetery wasn’t in her town. It was the next town over. It was actually a city, but it was close to where she lives. In his wish, he wanted her husband to be buried so that she can go visit him every day. Believe me, we agonized over where to bury him. Money was no object for my mother-in-law but she wasn’t a rich woman. But she went and paid in there to have him buried in this particular graveyard because she wanted him close to where she lived so she could go visit him. So, it would be pretty scary if we get to the point where somebody can’t bury their loved one, a Plymouth resident or somebody that wanted to bring their parents back or somebody that couldn’t bury them there. It’s emotional enough losing somebody but then you can’t bury them to where you want to bury them. So, my question is, I know what we’re doing right now is to save time but how quick are we to taking care of the problem, which is lack of grave space? How quick are we to get another cemetery?

Jonathan Beder:

So, I’ll jump in, Charlie. I think it’s a great question. It’s an important question. It’s timed with why we’re here this evening. Kenny has done a really good job and I think everybody knows we’ve been looking at Parting Ways for a decade and it doesn’t seem to be a good fit. A lot of the property owned by the town has CRs, Conservation Restrictions so that’s difficult. We have been doing a series of mapping. I will say in terms of property acquisition, we’re very close. We’re very close. We have a couple of properties we have our eyes on. Again, I said we’ll be back. We can’t really disclose the information out. We’re working on it but what we would like to do is acquire the property and then go to town meeting, produce construction money. And I’d say anywhere between a year and a half, two years, you could have additional space.

Kenny has done a great job in terms of finding additional space within the cemeteries. I will say comfortably as he mentioned, I think we can make it work within two to three years to have that space ready to go. I think by restricting lot sales and doing what we want to do in the next couple of weeks, with rules and regs and fees, we can manage it properly so we can sustain cemetery space in the Town of Plymouth.   

Charlie Bletzer:

So, JB, what county is pretty close then?

Jonathan Beder:

We need to work on it, Charlie.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, we need to really work on this. I know we can do it, but we need to really get the ball rolling in this one.

Jonathan Beder:

That we do.

Charlie Bletzer:      

Okay, great. Beautiful.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions or comments from the board? Ken, do you have your hand up or is that–

Kenneth King:

I do. Can you still hear me?

Dick Quintal:

Yes.

Kenneth King:           

So, back to Harry’s question, on average, we sell about ten non-resident lots. So, I didn’t really think it was that big of an issue for us to increase the price. Typically, it isn’t that much of the lot says that we sell. So, when I asked when it could be full, I didn’t want to make it look like I was trying to place people out of town even if they’re non-residents. To Charlie’s question, Charlie, that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do the last couple years is put people exactly where they want to go, where their families are, where their friends are and I’ll continue to do that while I’m here.

Dick Quintal:

Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

Is there going to be a timeframe? Is this restriction going to go into place immediately, in a month, in a week? How is that all going to go down?

Dick Quintal:

It was our hope that we put in place tonight. Because if you advertise in the rates then I’ll let Kenny speak to this, what will happen is you’ll have an influx and everybody is going to come in and that’s really going to shock me and we really can’t. So, that’s the reason that we need to bring this up tonight and then have the hearing on the rates on the 22nd.

Kenneth King:

So, I will speak on that for a minute. So, a lot of the lots where we have opened up, when we opened up a small section in Manomet a few years back, it literally sold out within about six months. That was about 25 lots and then it’s a populous cemetery. We really didn’t have much space. I just created about 40 somewhat cremate only sections in that cemetery. When we opened up near the office, we had so many people. We advertised it in the local paper, we had so many people show up that we actually have to give them numbers then go out because people want certain places in the cemetery and they’ll do everything they can to get them.

[0:55:26]

Kenneth King:

Every time we advertise for lot sales or even discuss it, we get a run on the rocks. The last time this was discussed about a year ago or more, we sold probably more lots in two weeks than we normally do in three months. So, that is another issue.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions?

Betty Cavacco:

Not a question but a comment. So, now, we’re really an emergent situation and I’m a little dismayed that we’re here. It’s like, how did we get here? But I understand. I want to go in the ocean, by the way.

Dick Quintal:

Charlie?          

Charlie Bletzer:

Forget about how we got here. How are we going to get from here to taking this problem? I will forget about how we got here. I’m confident in our new town manager, Derek, JB and Kenny that we can accomplish this and the board and get this fixed. So, let’s forget about how we got here and let’s move on.

Dick Quintal:

JB?

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah, just to respond to Betty’s comment. I wouldn’t say it’s an issue that’s critical right now. I think we’re here because we can manage it properly if we move it forward collectively. Between acquiring space and putting these types of procedures in place, I’m confident we can make it work easily within two years. I don’t think we’ll meet that deadline. Hopefully, we can set those rates and lift the restrictions some time within the not too distance future and this won’t be an issue six months or a year from now. So, thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Any other comments or questions from the board? So, JB, we’re looking to put we’ll use my term sales of lots unless it’s absolute necessity, is that correct?

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah, that’s correct, Mr. Chairman. We’re looking for a restriction in terms of the sale of lots for immediate burials only at the discretion of the cemetery superintendent.     

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Somebody want to make a motion?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll make the motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Second. For discussion.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion?

Betty Cavacco:

I just have a question. So, what happens if they say it’s the cemetery superintendent, what happens if there’s a conflict? How do we address that? What happens if someone says, “We have this,” someone says, “No.” What’s the recourse or what’s the action anyone is going to take? Because if someone has their heart set on burying their loved one somewhere here and it is an immediate death, and something happens that we say no, what recourse do people have?

Kenneth King:

I can answer that, Betty. So, usually, if it’s a full burial, the family is working with a funeral home, we’re going to be notified that they’re either coming up to the office or there’s a need for that sale in their immediate family. So, there’s no denying that. So, as far as cremation burials, a lot of those are also done from funeral home. So, they’ll call up and arrange it because we need to prepare the site regardless if it’s cremate burial or full burial. At that time, people do come up and see me and they’re buying a lot and it’s obvious that they’re going to need a lot soon and that’s one of the things that through my discretion, I know that it is necessary that they purchase the lot. So, I don’t think much of that will go on.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m sorry, but just one more question. So, let’s just say someone passes away and their surviving spouse were in this moratorium but of course, they want to be buried next to each other. Is this something that you’re going to sell two lots or are you going to sell just a lot for the deceased and then this doesn’t kind of give guaranteed any spouse or partner or significant other or whatever you want to call that. When my parents died, one passed first and the lot was for the next one right beside them. So, I’m just wondering if that’s something that we’re taking into consideration.

[1:00:32]

Kenneth King:

I am. So, that’s why I asked for that memo that two lots to be purchased at a time. The majority of the lots that we sell are exactly like what you spoke up with two lots being sold. But we usually sell a lot of single lots, double lots. On average, it’s usually that number. So, yes, I figured that out when I wrote out the memo.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions or comments? All those in favor? Unanimous. And just to say to the board and the people watching, this is why I’ve been asking different department heads and managers to come in every week to find out the state of what their department is and what we can learn including town members that are watching, any town members that might be watching so they have a little background of what’s going on. I’m going to go all the way through this with public safety via police. Everybody will be coming in on a different week and giving us an update at their department, where they should be, any people, any bodies and so we get a pulse on what’s going on. Because honestly, this really went on a little too long. And I know how it did but it doesn’t really matter. The matter is that we’re going to fix it. So, Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

Just before I’m done with cemetery but while JB is here, before we lose him, could we ask them update on our gravel roads because I know that we’ve all had a bunch of questions and issues about our graveled roads and also, some complaints because we’re not able to maintain them the way they should but I just like if he could chime in before he goes.

Jonathan Beder:

Absolutely! Is that okay for me to jump in on that real quick?

Dick Quintal:

Yeah. Absolutely!

Jonathan Beder:

Again, we’ve been getting a lot of calls on the gravel roads. As everybody knows, we have 90 miles of gravel roads here in Plymouth and what happens is during the winter months, the ground freezes, we get huge snowpack and what we do in terms of providing tractions, we put sand on those roads. We get rain, we get snowmelt, we get freeze-thaw cycles and those roads change so quickly that they’re very difficult for us to maintain.

We have both road graders out. We started yesterday. They’ll be out the rest of this week and until next week. What we do is we scrape them and try to flatten them out and then put material down to provide the traction. So, again, we have got dozens of phone calls on gravel roads. We’re out there every day. Just give us a little bit of time. I ask for your patience. If you like, call (508) 830-4162 extension 12101. You can speak to Carol and leave a message. That’s the best way to get a hold of us and let us know the location and we will get there. Just give us some time. But yeah, those roads, some of them are almost impassable right now. There are a little bit of holes and they just ruts. It’s just very bumpy, very rocky. We’re hearing from the bus companies, we’re hearing from motorists. We’re aware of it and we are slowly going to catch up with those. But it’s the temperature differential. It’s going to be warm this week. It’s going to be rainy, the roads are frozen, they thaw out during the day, freeze again at night so that constant change is what causes the problem. But we’re aware of it and we’ll get to it as soon as we can. So, thank you.

Dick Quntal:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Just a quick comment, JB. Could you also give people an update because I know we’re getting a lot of pothole complaints and I know like there are craters out there?

Jonathan Beder:

Absolutely! Again, if you drive through any community right now, you see the potholes and they’re nasty this year. That is also due to the free-thaw cycles. The water gets into the asphalt and really just does a number on it. We do not like to use what’s called cold patch. We like to use the hot mix because that’s the best methodology. Everyday we check with the asphalt companies, tail it what’s enabling and Plymouth are opened hopefully tomorrow. But we do expect to have our hotbox out, patching potholes. And similar with the gravel roads, call 830-4162 extension 12101 if you have a pothole. Let us know. It’s hard for us to kind of see everything and be everywhere but gravel roads and potholes, that’s what we’re doing these days.

[1:05:19]

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.   

Jonathan Beder:

You’re welcome.        

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, JB and thank you, Ken very much.

Kenneth King:   

Thank you.

Jonathan Beder:

Have a great night, everybody.

Dick Quintal:

You too.

Charlie Bletzer:

Thanks, JB.

Jonathan Beder:

You’re welcome.

Dick Quintal:

Next will be town meeting Article 20: Fur Ban.

Lauren Nessralla:

Hello. Am I able to present?

Dick Quintal:

Yes, you were.

Lauren Nessralla:

Okay. It doesn’t appear that there’s a share screen button on here. I think because of the webinar format.

Betty Cavacco:

We have.

Christopher Badot:

You should have the button at the bottom. It’s a green button at the bottom of your screen.

Lauren Nessralla:

Yes, but it’s not appearing.

Christopher Badot:

Okay. I’m going to convert you to a panelist. Hold on one second. Just accept the invite when I do that, okay?

Lauren Nessralla:

Okay. Thank you.

Christopher Badot:

Okay. You should see it now. There you go. 

Lauren Nessralla:

I apologize about that. Could you not hear me?

Dick Quintal:

No. Now, we can.

Lauren Nessralla:

Okay. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Lauren Nessralla. I’ve been a resident of Plymouth for 18 years. I’m the one who filed the citizen’s petition for Article 20. Plymouth has shaped me into the person I am today. I developed my love for learning when I was a student at Rising Tide for middle school. I became a hard worker from working at Safe Harbor Marina in Plymouth as a dock hand and as a baby sitter for a Plymouth family. I developed my passion for running through cross country and track as well as my interest in the natural sciences, ethics and philosophy and then political science and local government through Plymouth North High School before I graduated from there last June. All these experiences bring me here today. Now, I’m a student at U Mass-Boston but Plymouth is where my family, friends and home. I wanted to share the following sides to the Select Board so they may understand the fur industry and why it’s important for Plymouth to adapt the fur by-law. The following slides will support the goal of prohibiting the sale of fur in Plymouth and increase the health and safety to its residents.

What this bylaw does is prohibit the sale of cruel fur products that require animals to be raised or trapped and killed for their fur pelts. If these fur pelts are then turned into finished fur products which are defined as articles of clothing, fashion accessories or home décor that are made in whole or part fur. This bylaw matches Plymouth’s high ethical, environmental and health standards.

To be clear, listed in Article 20 section 4 are the exceptions to the prohibition. The fur-free bylaw does not affect the sale of other animal-derived products such as wool, cashmere, leather or any other cowhide or sheepskin with hair fibers still attached. It does not place any restraints on hunting nor does it prohibit the sale of taxidermy. It does not affect used fur sold second-hand. The bylaw is also not a hindrance to fur use for religious, Native American, tribal, cultural or spiritual purposes.

Fur is an extremely unethical product. It comes from tortured and abused animals. Some examples of animals that are subjected to this abuse include racoon dogs, chinchillas, mink, foxes and rabbits. These animals are killed by the cheapest and therefore most painful means possible including anal and oral electrocution, gassing, clubbing and suffocation.

[1:09:58]

Lauren Nessralla:

Here’s a picture taken by Jo-Anne McArthur, a respected animal photojournalist, of an emaciated fox in a Canadian fur farm who is likely been killed so that someone could turn her skin into the pompon on a hat or the trim on a jacket.

More than a hundred million animals are killed annually just for their fur. 85 to 95% of these animals are raised on fur farms in tiny, filthy cages where they literally lose their minds from confinement. This is a picture of standard sized cages for mink and white foxes. Living in such conditions results in stereotypic behaviors such as spinning, beating their heads against their cages, self-mutilation and even cannibalism. Their morality in subjecting to the animals to this torture so humans can make a fashion statement is largely the reason why separate polls taken in 2019 by the Humane Society Legislative Fund and Fur-free Alliance demonstrate that 59% to 64% of Massachusetts support a statewide fur ban with only 19% opposing.

These animals raised for their fur require huge amounts of feed and produce large amounts of manure that results in waste runoff into soil and water ways. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, the climate change of one pound of mink fur is at least three times higher than the highest rank textile synthetic or natural due to their production of animal feed and manure emissions. Plymouth is better than to ignore such facts as these. Our ban on plastic bags represents that we are a municipality that cares about our ecosystems and protecting species.

This is a photo of white mink on a farm in Denmark from the article by the New York Times regarding mink and COVID. The raising and trapping of animals for their fur poses a health risk to Plymouth as well as advances the progression and mutations of COVID-19. In 2020, mink and hundreds of fur factory farms internationally and in the United States, in Utah, Wisconsin, Michigan and Oregon tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 to humans. Scientists have also found that mink have proteins that function as receptors for SARS-CoV that are 87% similar to human receptors meaning that they could be a potential reservoir of SAR-CoV like viruses.

Research now shows that farm mink spread mutated viruses to humans, the only known animal to human transmission outside the original source. These mutations might reduce the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. To protect public health, the Spanish, Danish and Dutch governments actually decide to kill nearly 20 million minks of infected farms. France and the Netherlands passed laws to ban fur farming.

Why should Plymouth take action to prohibit the sale of fur? Well, at a time when resellers are struggling, why would they hold on to any inventory that actively detracts potential customers when they could and said gain positive attention by advertising themselves as fur-free and in support of fur-free legislation. The bylaw if enacted at the earliest will give businesses until May of 2023. Any businesses selling fur would have ample notice to sell off their inventory so that they can be in compliance with the law without further action from the town. In this way, the bylaw would be self-enforcing and come at little to no cost to the town. Retailers also increasingly understand that ethical commitments pertaining to animal and environmental welfare help their businesses because we are living in an era where consumers are increasingly purchasing with their conscience. Ninety cities have already passed fur prohibitions into law. California, being the first state to do so and similar measures have been accomplished in Massachusetts in the cities of Wellesley, Weston and Brooklyn.

Our attorney general approved the similar bylaw languages of Weston and Wellesley from determining that they are constitutional and do not conflict with any existing state law. So, while we won’t be the first to make this ethical commitment, we will be the fourth in Massachusetts and we will be the most animal friendly municipality in the state with a ban on pet store nails, a ban on using animals in circuses and a ban on cruel fur products. This is something that will only reflect positively on Plymouth’s retailers and the town of Plymouth itself.

For more information or to see the cited articles, please visit www.furfreema.com/plymouth. I urge the Select Board to vote in favor of the fur ban. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Any questions from the board? I see a none. Lee, is this passed down, had been presented to any other boards in the town or–

[1:15:03]

Lee Hartman:

Yes. So, typically, we don’t spend a lot of time at town council investment into petitioned article until we know there’s either a board or a department or somebody in support of it. Because again, a number of these are making it very expensive. So, we found out that I think it was last week, the advisory and finance committee have voted 13 to 1 to support this. So, we did ask town council based on their support so they will be moving forward with the motion that town meeting adapt us and we ask more from town council to look at the language. I got that in earlier today. I did email it to you. He does not see any issues with this. The only thing we would have to do if the town wants to adapt it is to put it in and figure out what chapter and section of the town bylaw would go in. And I’ve asked the town clerk to give me her advise on where she thinks it might best be fit. So, we have that language ready for the motion. So, again, the advisory and finance committee has supported this. It’s not something at a staff level. We have not invested any time in or have any position to offer the board.

Dick Quintal:

So, with that all being said, do we want a motion on our level? We haven’t heard back from council or–

Lee Hartman:

We have heard back from council. And again, the council knows there’s really nothing procedurally wrong with this article.

Dick Quintal:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Yeah, I don’t think there’s going to be much prior discussion so I’d like to motion that we support Article 20.

Dick Quintal:

Do we have a second?

Betty Cavacco:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second, Mrs. Cavacco. Discussion?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’d like some discussion on it.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

I have a hard time telling businesses what they can sell in scripting what they can do. It’s three towns in the commonwealth who had this banned, three towns: Wellesley, Weston and Brooklyn. Three of the most fluent towns in the commonwealth and probably three of the towns that have the most furs probably per households in the commonwealth. My problem is I’ve read through the whole thing before when they presented it to us and Ms. Nesralla did a great job. She did a lot of research on this. But I hear that it’s okay for taxidermies, it’s okay for religious, it’s okay if it’s for the tribal, it’s see the good or not good. I see that it’s okay for some people to use furs. So, I just have a hard time with this and I’m not prepared to support this right now. I’m really not. I have a real problem with this. So, I mean, what’s next? Take a lot at the three towns that support it and go there someday and take a look at all the furs in those towns, believe me, I’m not going to use the word hypocritical but I am not even sure what stores sell it, what stores don’t sell it right now but at this point, there’s a lot of more issues I’m worried about right now. And Ms. Nesralla, you worked hard on this and you deserve credit for what you did. It may pass, I’m just one select board member but I wouldn’t be in favorable of this and those are my reasons. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Any other comments from the board or questions? Seeing none. I just have one question, Chris. We request that I pass on for a public request and I sent it to Connor. I hope I did it right and one to you, Chris, have we given him what he’s asked on? So, we wouldn’t have the opportunity to speak, correct?

Christopher Badot:

Yes, he got the whole packet.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, great. I just want to make sure. Okay. Any more questions from the board? All those in favor? Four in favor, one in opposition. Thank you. Lee will be presenting the Housing Choice.

Lee Hartman:

That would be me.

[1:20:02]

Dick Quintal:

Okay, Mr. Hartman, it’s all yours.

Lee Hartman:

This has come up a few times and I’ve had a little discussion with a couple board members. We just thought it was a good idea to just give you an update on what’s going on with the commonwealth of Massachusetts and their housing initiatives. So, I think I’ve said before, you might have heard the governor has a goal of creating over 35,000 new house, homes and/or units of housing in the commonwealth. And there are a number of different avenues that they’re taking to get that number cheap.

One of the things they’ve done is they’ve identified what’s called MBTA Communities. Because we have the North Plymouth Train Station at Cordage Park, an MBTA community. So, now, the state is coming up with regulations for what you have to do and what not have to do and what they would like you to do as an MBTA community. The requirement is not mandatory. We don’t have to do this. But if we don’t do it, we’re not eligible for most the big state grants like the big one that we have, which is–I’m blanking on the name, the one we’ve used a number of times.

Betty Cavacco:

MVP.

Lee Hartman:

The MassWorks Grant.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, MassWorks.

Lee Hartman:

So, this is a big implication for the town as far as grants, but that’s the only thing. So, if we don’t comply with their regulations, we wouldn’t be eligible for a range of grants including MassWorks. So, the way they’ve defined an MBTA community is because we have the North Plymouth Train Station and they’ve got really three main criteria that we need to comply with to be eligible for grants. The first one is that we need to have at least 50 acres of land zoned for as of right meaning no special permit as of rental units at a density of 20 units per acre at the density, which is in pretty high density. Our multi-family bylaw allows by special permit 6 units per acre, which are in the 20 units per acre.

So, 50 acres of land with by right allowing them to 20 units per acre. So, we have the 50 acres which is the Cordage Park 40-hour district which allows for multi-family by right. We allow in that district 675 units, about 300 of 675 units either have been built on or under construction now. Their requirement would mean that we’d have to have a total of 750 units. So, we are already are about a hundred units short of what they would require in that 50 acres. So, again, the first thing 50 acres of land with the capability of supporting at least 750 units. So, we complied with that piece.

The second piece they have that says that when we look at the entire town, and again, for us it’s pretty unique because this train station is topped lay up in the northeast section of the community but they look at the entire town, Plymouth is very large, five times the size of an average community in Massachusetts and I believe it’s 15% of your housing that that district has to also be able to hold the equivalent of 15% of your housing stock as of right multi-family zoning. They’re not saying you have to provide the multifamily, you just have the zoning in place. So, what that would mean for Plymouth is to create a district or to look at North Plymouth and I would say to some degree Plymouth Center to allow by right 4,211 units. I almost can’t say that without laughing. I mean, that would totally change the whole fabric of the community to be able to say, by right, in North Plymouth you could convert any single family, two-family, three-family house into a high density 20 units per acre with a maximum potential total of 4,211 units. So, it’s totally unachievable. I think even if they said to me, “Find a place in all of Plymouth where you can allow 4,200 new homes with all the growth we’re having already by right without any kind of special permit review.” It’s an incredibly high bar that’s set for us.

So, I have been on a number of Zoom meetings with the state agencies responsible for this. I’ve talked to our state delegation about it. I’ve made it very clear that this is just an incredibly unreasonable bar for them to set to be able to be eligible for these grants. For a town that has one station, I think still doesn’t have weekends or only does a couple of trains a day with a hundred spaces, it defies logic.

[1:25:09]

Lee Hartman:

So, again, we’re still pushing moratoriums than excellent. Mr. Mirand have been in contact with you. We’ve been talking to our delegation. We’ll continue to push. But again, I thought it was important to let the board know where this sit. I understand from some of my contact with other communities, we’re not alone in this situation. I’ve been told to expect some revisions to their guidelines. We’ll have to see what that looks like. Again, if something like this or even close to this comes out, you could have a pretty big impact on our ability to apply for grants. So, we’ll keep working with our delegation and I have another Zoom meeting on this either tomorrow or a Thursday. Again, we’ll plead our case but we want to make you aware that this is a pretty big one that they’re putting on us. Not mandatory but certainly has a big impact. If we don’t do it, we wouldn’t be eligible for grants. So, that’s I think all I wanted to do for the overview. So, we’ll see where this goes.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Harry?

Harry Helm:

Lee, a couple of questions. Do we have any idea how many millions if even that of these grants we get on average a year?

Lee Hartman:

I would say over the last decade, it’s probably over $10 million.

Harry Helm:

Okay. So, about a million bucks a year but $10 million over a decade.

Lee Hartman:

We’re very aggressive. And again, I’d have to look at these grants but we’re very aggressive in the state grants.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, absolutely. And I know that this program gets mentioned a lot with a lot of things that are brought when I was on the Finance Committee. A question for you because I think it begs the question. What if we get rid of that station that no one really uses anyway?

Lee Hartman:

There are other communities that are still considered. I don’t know how this all works. There are MBTA communities that don’t even have a train station in it. They’re just near one.

Harry Helm:

So, we’re really close to the Kingston Train Station so we are going to get there the same.

Lee Hartman:

And I’m not sure how we could ever get rid of that either but–

Harry Helm:

I was just kind of thinking and it popped quickly to mind like no weekend service, 100 spots, it’s kind of a strange situation. You don’t really get to go directly to Boston. You kind of go via Kingston and most people are choosing to start in Kingston anyway. But it sounds like this is coming out as in one way or another.

Lee Hartman:

Again, I think I’m stressed. They’re not saying you have to build 4,200 units. They’re just saying you have to have land zoned for it. But again, at that density, the potential impacts for Plymouth would be incredible because it’s a by right, which means if they just get a building permit. So, if it comes down to something lower, I think we can maybe look at some options but at this point, it’s not even worth a discussion.

Harry Helm:

Well, Lee, at that density, the investment potential on an acre with four houses on it, that kind of density is a no-brainer for a developer.

Lee Hartman:

Right. So, I’ll keep you posted. Hopefully, the regulation can change to a place that’s a little more committed and reasonable.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. And Town Manager’s report, Mr. Hartman?

Lee Hartman:

I really just have one thing for this report. We’ve been very busy as you guys all know because you’ve been sitting with me through all of them. So, most of my time right now has been taken up with negotiations, trying to get some things wrapped up for town meeting. So, I don’t have a lot of other time but I did want to announce that I know we’ve done a lot to let this out. But first thanking JB and the DPW, Chris Horvath from Emergency Management, Karen Keane and her crew as well as the Center for Active Living. We have the test kits that have come in to the town, the county and we’re making those available this Saturday either here at Town Hall and the great hall through Karen Keane and the Board of Health or the Public Health Office and then also, at the Emergency Management Center over at the fire station in Cedarville. So, that will be on Saturday from 9:00 to 1:00, this Saturday coming up. And then after that, we’ll have them available at the Emergency Management Office as well as the Public Health Office during normal working hours from there. So, again, big shoutout to everybody to put that together to have those available. And if you can’t make it to one of those places, you should be calling the Board of Health or you could come down and grab them also from the town hall. So, again, this Saturday both here at Town Hall and also at the Emergency Management Office in Cedarville from 9:00 to 1:00. That’s all I have for town manager’s report.

[1:30:21]

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Hartman, if I may, how many per household or family and do they have to bring any identification or anything with them?

Lee Hartman:

We would like them to get proof of residency that they are a Plymouth resident and we’re targeting about two test kits per person.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Lee or comments?

Lee Hartman:

And I also do want to point that each test kit has two in it so that’s four tests.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Betty, do you have a question?

Betty Cavacco:

I don’t have a question about the test kits but I do have a question for the town manager, if now is the time.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

Or I could do it under new business, it’s up to you.

Dick Quintal:

You can ask him. He seems like he’s still wide awake.

Betty Cavacco:

So, Lee, when we were doing the White Horse Beach Parking District down here, one of the main concerns and one of the reasons why we move forward so quickly was that we were going to be able to fund a private security firm to write tickets and this was also part of the new beach fund group that Mr. Bletzer has formed. So, I’m wondering is that anywhere in our budget for town meeting? I was looking at it and I didn’t see anything specific. So, I don’t know if it’s under the police department. I don’t know if it’s under town manager or where it is but I think that was something that this court discussed in pretty much detail. So, I’d like to know where that is and if it’s not–is special town meeting closed yet?

Lee Hartman:

Yes, it has. I will look into it though. I mean, certainly, we have the ability to amend the budget but I will check with Lyn to see if that is something that we could put into the budget.

Betty Cavacco:      

That was all.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. We’re going to move on to public comment. Chris, is there anybody wishing to speak on the public comment?

Christopher Badot:

Not that I can see. Oh, yeah. There is, hold on one second. We have Alex Baier.

Alex Baier:

Hi, everyone! Can you hear me all right?

Dick Quintal:

Yes, Alex. Welcome.

Alex Baier:

Thank you. I would just like to make a comment about Ms. Nessralla’s presentation of the fur ban, if that’s okay.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Alex Baier:

So, yeah, I’m a Plymouth resident. I just wanted to say that I’m in full support of the article. Commercial furs are incredibly bad for both animals and the environment as well as for people as we’ve seen the fur operations producing COVID outbreaks. Plymouth has hold some high standard in both Massachusetts and in New England. We can be one of the pioneers in legislation that supports a fair world for both humans and animals alike. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on the public comment, Chris?

Christopher Badot:

No, sir.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. If they do, you can just let us know. They should show up. Licenses and administrative notes. Tyson Holdings LLC doing business as Shelly’s Tea Room, Common Virtualler’s License.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

MAR Promotions is requesting a One Day Wine and Malt License being held on the 25th, 2022 from 5:00 PM to 1:00am at Memorial Hall.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Dick Quintal:

Second?

Patrick Flaherty:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. 

GMRI Inc doing business as The Olive Garden, is requesting a Change of Officers (Liquor). The list of the officers and the proposed new officers is attached in your packet.

[1:35:01]

Charlie Bletzer:

Motion.

Betty Cavacco:     

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

We have five administrative notes that we can move unless anybody has a question or wants to check one out separately at the pleasure of the board.

Betty Cavacco:

I motion to move as a group.      

 

Patrick Flaherty:

I’ll second that.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

Number five, who was the member in number 5 in the Energy Committee?

Patrick Flaherty:

It’s Ashley.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. All right. I’m in favor.

Dick Quintal:

We’re doing discussion. But discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Committee Liaison updates? Designee updates? Old business? Letters? New business? Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes. I sent the board a packet earlier today from a committee meeting that I had with Sharl Heller, David Gould. It wasn’t a committee but it was that particular committee and it was for off highway vehicle. Mr. Gould has provided quite a bit of information for we’re always being about dirt bikes and motorized vehicles to have a place and he has provided some information to the board regarding it and there were three different: one was the wood lot, one was the thousand acres, and the other was I think some county property. Oh, no, the Cedarville landfill area. So, after speaking with the folks from the state, we thought it would be best if we could form a working group so we can gather all this information and then make it as an agenda item to discuss in front of the board probably in a month or so. So, I’d like to make a motion to be able to create a off highway vehicle working group.

Dick Quintal:

Do we have a second?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second it.

Harry Helm:

Seconded.

Dick Quintal:

Seconded. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Anyone else under new business? Go ahead, Betty.

Betty Cavacco:

I was going to actually ask you, Mr. Chairman, if you’d like to provide a little update on our meeting from last night.

Dick Quintal:

Oh, yes. Betty and myself attended the town docks Betty’s nuclear meeting that they had at the town hall to contends with the old tech and potential dumping of waste water or nuclear water into the bays. We’re all going to be in together from here I think with situate wealthily docks maybe Kingston.

Betty Cavacco:

Cohasset.

Dick Quintal:

The Cohasset, thank you. And Betty picked up. I think she reached out to Mary Lambert today and is going to start the Facebook gang going. Betty, you want to tell us a little about that?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure. So, one of the things, the Lampert’s are quite informed and they continually are doing research and although we have heard that radioactive waste dumping has happened in the past, that really shouldn’t be–well, it’s not that it’s not our concern but we can’t really do anything about what happened in the past. It’s the future that we’re looking forward to. So, I think it’s going to become actually quite an active group.

[1:40:02]

Betty Cavacco:

And there was quite a few people and there were people from Senator Markey’s office, Senator Warren’s office, Sue Mirand’s office, Mike Jackman. So, it was a great group of people and everybody had ideas. And one of the ideas that our board came up with was to have a some type of social media: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram pages and invite people to these pages and give updates as we move forward. When I talked to Mary and Jim today Lampert, they sent me the actual recording of the meeting last night and I did forward that to the whole board but it’s power in numbers and we have a lot of surrounding communities that don’t want these things to happen and they’re all willing to work together to make sure that it doesn’t happen to our bays and our waters. So, it was a very exciting meeting and it was very informative with a lot of information. And I know Chairman Quintal and myself were very happy to attend.

Dick Quintal:

Yes. Charlie, do you want to say something?

Charlie Bletzer:

Thank you for doing that for the board. I appreciate that. I also like to thank our new town manager, Derek Brindisi for coming on the meeting with us tonight. I know he’s not fully on board with us till March but he’d taken his own time to be with us tonight. And Derek, I really appreciate it and I want to get in touch with you probably after this meeting if it’s okay and set up a time that we can get together, okay? If that’s possible.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, absolutely! Just so the board is aware, I will be in town tomorrow all day and all day in Thursday. I thought it was important for me to just solicit this evening and see what’s happening and hear what’s going on. It’s all part of my small transition process to get to the town full-time effective March 14th. So, it’s great to see everybody. Thank you.

Charlie Bletzer:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Anything else under new business? You’re right, Betty, Mary Lambert is a very knowledgeable, to say the least and she’s no stranger to Plymouth. She’s been the linking street many times when we’re over there. Yeah, she is.

Betty Cavacco:

She’s a little spitfire.

Dick Quintal:

I got to get in the street. I haven’t got that done yet but I’m working on it. And I just want to say that shoutout to SEIU, there’s a tentative agreement going out for ratification if all goes well with their group. And if it does, it will come back to this board next Tuesday and hopefully we’ll have another one done. I want to say thank you to Lee. Well, if it all done, which I believe it should be. Thank you to Lee, Marie Brinkmann, the Finance Director Lynne Barrett, Tyra Brennan, Julie Ann–is it Lewis from the Veterans Department. It’s been a class thing. And JC Wright. For this class, everybody was respectful. We got to the issues and well, nothing is voted yet. But I just wanted to say that it should be taken up with them this week and brought to us next Tuesday. Anyone else have anything under new business? Okay. How about adjournment?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to adjourn.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you very much for watching and we’ll see you all next Tuesday. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Happy Valentine’s day.

Dick Quintal:

Yes, Happy Valentines Day.

Charlie Bletzer:

Thank you.

Patrick Flaherty:

Good night, everybody.