Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 3-29-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board 3-29-22 Minutes

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

Dick Quintal:

Welcome to the Select Board Meeting of Tuesday, March 29th, 2022. Please join the board in the Pledge of Allegiance.

All:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Betty Cavacco:

Good evening, everyone. In accordance with Section 2475, and pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting will be conducted via remote means and in-person. Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting may do so in the following manner: tune in to PACTV government cable access channels Comcast 15 and Verizon 47 and watch the meeting as it is aired, or watch the meeting live on PACTV website at PACTV.org. Members of the public who wish to participate in the meeting may do so in the following manner:

In-person at Plymouth Town Hall, 26 Court Street, in the 1820 Courtroom.

Remote participation: Please go to the Town website under the Select Board Page and click on the Zoom Webinar Registration box or simply contact our admin, Chris Badot.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Mrs. Cavacco. Please join the board at this time for a moment of silence for our Town Clerk, Pearl Sears, who passed Friday evening. Thank you. Does any of the board want to have a comment on Pearl? I know Betty has something she’d like to read but, Betty, Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure. Pearl Sears was the first female clerk in our 400-year history. She was fun, caring, energetic and a dedicated individual with a positive attitude and a smile that could light up a room, if not the entire Town Hall. Her colleagues, both past and present, have nothing but kind words to say for Pearl. She earned a reputation of being the problem solver in the face of challenges and led with the sound and calming voice that all admired.

The respect she gained through her years of dedicated service to the town of Plymouth is only overshadowed by the love of her friends and family have for her. To fellow friends, colleagues and Plymouth residents, let us all strive to keep the name of Pearl Sears alive. As a community, we are better to have known her. Personally, Pearl’s spark will never fade. Her smile will be with me forever. Her kindness will always be remembered, and her bell will ring eternally. Rest in the sweetest of peace and love, Pearl. You were such a gift to all.

We started a Go Fund, and it’s actually on many of the social media sites for Pearl’s son. Pearl took care of him. He’s an adult with some medical issues and he needs our help right now. So, there is a link and I know the Town Clerks Office and this is the Town Clerk’s Office over here that were Pearl’s comrades. And if people could maybe you know take that and hopefully be able to donate, so we can help her son out because he as well as the rest of the family are not really that good right now, so.

Dick Quintal:

Any other comments from the board? Okay, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I don’t know if anyone over there has anything to say. No?

Dick Quintal:

No.

Betty Cavacco:

Anna, do you want to go to the podium so everyone can hear you?

[0:05:13]

Anna Messner:

Thank you, Chairman Quintal, Vice Chair Cavacco, Members of the board, Mr. Brindisi. My name is Anna Messner, I am the Acting Town Clerk. I’d like to say a few words about Pearl Sears, our town clerk. As many of you know, Pearl cared deeply about people. She cared even more about her community, about her town. She was committed to her work here with the Town of Plymouth. She was very honored to be the first woman to serve as town clerk. She was an inspiration to many of us, and she rose to the occasion.

For some of us, she was also a mentor and a good friend. We are saddened but honored to be here tonight the town clerk’s office, and I know that all of her colleagues and friends are also pleased to be here in support of her. We will miss her smile, her kind words, her positive attitude, professionalism and most of all her friendship. I thank you very much. Good night.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. This time, I’d like to move on to the public hearing for Sam Diegos. In accordance with Chapter 138 of the Massachusetts General Laws as amended, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held remotely or in-person at Plymouth Town Hall, 26th Court Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts on Tuesday, March 29th, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the application for an alteration of premises from Sam Diegos East Incorporated d/b/a Sam Diegos Mexican Cookery and Bar, holder of an Annual All Alcohol Restaurant License, 51 main street, Richard Sorenson, manager. Description of premises are as follows: first floor kitchen, bar, table service. Second floor bar, lounge, basement, kitchen storage and receiving. On the first-floor entrance exit on the west side of the building and one entrance exit on the east side of the building. Outdoor patio on the west side of the building to include 11 tables with chairs at each table. Applicant seeks to add outdoor dining tables on the sidewalk and in parking space per the license agreement from the town. Anyone wishing to be heard on this matter should plan to attend this meeting. I now declare the hearing open. And Chris, is there anybody here from Sam Diegos?

Chris Badot:

Yes, sir.

Dick Quintal:

Oh, there is Richard. Good afternoon, Mr. Sorenson, are you there?

Richard Sorenson:

I am.

Dick Quintal:

All right. Do you have anything you’d like to say at this time before we get started?

Richard Sorenson:

No, I just thank you for the opportunity.

Dick Quintal:

All right. Let’s see what happens here. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this application? Nobody trying to dial in or anything, right? Okay. At this time, I declare this hearing closed and bring it back to the board.

Charlie Bletzer:

I have a couple of questions.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’d like to ask you a question, Mr. Sorenson.

Richard Sorenson:

Yes.

Charlie Bletzer:

Charlie Bletzer. How many tables? It looks like nine or ten tables out there. How many seats do you have?

Richard Sorenson:

Total number of seats will be 24.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. So, it’s under the 29. Just an observation, during last year and the year before, I noticed that the sidewalk seemed to be blocked, very cluttered. I know you already have the outdoor patio and my concern is that hopefully you’re going to stay ADA Compliant out there. Now, again, I know you need it to succeed business-wise, but we need that sidewalk for our pedestrians and it has to be ADA compliant.

Richard Sorenson:

Yeah, I understand. I saw the rules and regs that you sent out with us and we measured out and there are five feet, and we won’t have umbrellas out there because we need eight feet cleared going to the top. So, we have discontinued using umbrellas on those tables on the sidewalk. So, we will meet all the requirements for people having a clear walkway.

[0:10:17]

Charlie Bletzer:

That’s great to hear, because looking at your plan I was just concerned with that. Mr. Helm and his committee, I’m sure are going to be watching what’s going on so, but I wish you luck this season. So, thank you.

Richard Sorenson:

Thank you very much.

Dick Quintal:

Any–Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Mr. Sorenson, I noticed on your street plan that at the one side where you have two tables by the driveway alongside of the take-out parking, you have two tables with 80 inches between the tables. When you’re calculating 80 inches, are you including a seat being at each of those tables in that 80-inch margin?

Richard Sorenson:

No, the seats will be on the sides. Those are going to be–those two tables will only have two people sitting at them on each side, not on the–

Harry Helm:

Okay, thank you.

Richard Sorenson:

Yeah.

Dick Quintal:

Waiting for a motion from the board.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll make a motion to approve.

Harry Helm:

I’ll second it.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Mr. Helm. All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

Richard Sorenson:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

In accordance with Chapter 138 of the Massachusetts General Laws as amended, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held remotely or in-person at Plymouth Town Hall, 26 Court Street Plymouth, Massachusetts on Tuesday, March 29th, 2022, at 6:05 pm to consider the application for an alteration of premises from Roll Street Tavern Incorporated d/b/a Roll Street Tavern, holder of an Annual All Alcohol Restaurant License, 35 Main Street, Unit 1, Jeffrey Zeitz, Manager. Description of the premises is as follows: two floors for a total of 4400 square feet. First floor: two rooms, walk-ins, liquor closet and prep area. Second floor is four rooms: kitchen, dining area, men’s and ladies’ rooms with two entrances, exits. Applicant seeks to add outdoor seating areas on the sidewalk, in the parking space and behind the restaurant for the license agreement from the town. Anyone wishing to be heard on this manner should plan to attend this meeting. I now declare this meeting open. I see Mr. Zeitz is here. Is there anything you’d like to say at this time, sir?

Jeffrey Zeitz:

No. I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the outside seating this year.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Please identify yourself for the record.

Peter Silva:

My name is Peter Silva, and I’m the owner of 2931 Main Street, right next door. I’m all for businesses trying to get street parking or seating, but I was unaware last time when it was granted to them. They had asked my tenant at the time, and she didn’t care. COVID was going on, we’re trying to help each other but now, since then, I have a new also filled out the other, rented out the other side and now their street parking in a parking space was in front of my store. It wasn’t in front of theirs and parking is terrible. As you know, downtown for these spaces. So, I would be opposed to them taking the space in front of our building.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Is that what the–

Peter Silva:

Well, one of the things is that they were approved for or as I was told that they were approved for outdoor seating in front of my spot, my store and in the rear of their store. So, they had two outdoor seating areas approved last year. I don’t know about this year.

[0:15:16]

Dick Quintal:

Harry, are you familiar with this area, this application?

Harry Helm:

I’m not familiar with the application. I’m not right, but–

Dick Quintal:

It says two in front of Roll Street Tavern, that’s what this–

Harry Helm:

But also, there are two–they’re requesting two space parklet.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah, I see that.

Harry Helm:

Okay, that would be part and that’s in front of the Craft Beer Cellar.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Peter Silva:

Which is my store. Yeah.

Harry Helm:

Which is your store? Now, your question is about?

Peter Silva:

Well, whether or not you’re going to be allowing that. I heard something about they’re not doing the one way this year. So, I don’t know how that’s going to affect anything, but I just think it’s kind of unfair for their outdoor seating to be in front of our stores.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Now, is the proposed two space parklet in front of the Craft Beer Cellars and this new business, or is it just in front of the Craft Beer Cellar?

Peter Silva:

So, the parking space is in front of both and in front of both 29 and 31. And then in front of that parking space is the loading zone, which is in front of the Roll Street. So, I’m just looking for another parking space not to be filled in front of our stores, that’s all. And it’s really not in front of their store.

Charlie Bletzer:

Question.

Dick Quintal:

Go ahead, Charlie and then Betty.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Zeitz, question, Charlie Bletzer. Do you still–is Park Plymouth, you’re still in an agreement with Park Plymouth to have the seating outback, the outdoor seating outback?

Jeffrey Zeitz:

We do. So, the reason why we had the seating last year in front of Craft Beer Cellars, and I’m aware that the new store in there as well, and I am most certainly want to be a good neighbor, we don’t have the ability to have the seating in front of our restaurant ourselves because of the loading zone that’s there. And so, that was what happened that the town did not want to lose the loading zone for all the businesses on the street. The backside seating quite frankly, we have the allowable use with Park Plymouth, but for us, the value really of the outside seating is in the front with everybody else on the street and creating the atmosphere, to have a lot of walker bys and so forth and so on to make it a vibrant street for all the businesses associated on Main Street. And that’s where last year the majority of the people chose to seat with us whenever available.

Charlie Bletzer:

How many seats are out in the Park Plymouth area?

Jeffrey Zeitz:

So, the way we had it laid out this year was in the Parkwood spot, we would have had three tables with four seats and twelve seats. We would have had two tops, which is the four seating directly in front of the restaurant on the sidewalk, a couple small tables and three tables in back of the restaurant with four seats.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, 12 seats in the back of the restaurant?

Jeffrey Zeitz:

Correct.

Charlie Bletzer:

That’s it for me.

Dick Quintal:

So, the reason the tables are over there basically is because of the loading zone. Do you think that Park Plymouth might move the loading zone over? There’s nowhere to turn it? I mean, we can ask them. We can request. What do you think, Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

I can’t answer.

Jeffrey Zeitz:

Quite honestly, my preference would be–I mean, I don’t want to hurt anyone else’s business, and my preference would be to have the tables honestly right in front of the store. It was just a safety concern last year and an operational concern last year.

Charlie Bletzer:

We also, Mr. Zeitz, I mean, we want the restaurants to succeed obviously, but the retail stores are very important too and that’s why the sidewalks are important.

[0:20:09]

Charlie Bletzer:

And I get where they’re coming from, they want people to be able to pull up to their store go in for a few minutes, make a purchase and then get out. So, I understand where Mr. Silva is coming from, and also the Craft Beer Store, I’m surprised that somebody from there is not here tonight going against this. I mean, it’s nothing against your restaurant. You have a great restaurant, but with the seating out back, and you get the seating, you do have some seating in front. We have to be fair I think to all businesses. So, that’s why Mr. Silva is here tonight, so.

Jeffrey Zeitz:

I think last year with Craft Beer Cellars, quite honestly, we played off well together. People would see and eat there and shop as well, and I think it’s to the vibrancy of the street. And it’s a really important factor for us to be competitive with the other restaurants on the street, quite honestly. And anything I could do to create a known joint shopping situation with the store. I’m a supporter of this store. So, anything I could do. It just would be a shame for us not to be on equal footing with the other restaurants and create the vibrancy on that side of the street to attract the people to walk down there, the foot traffic to have people go into the stores.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Derek, so that loading zone is pretty large in that area, how much space would a table take to encroach like on that loading zone just a little bit? It can’t be more than like six feet. So, is that a possibility?

Derek Brindisi:

Are you suggesting to move the tables? If we’re looking at the diagram that’s present in the packet, move the tables more to the right, more towards the loading zone?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, and that way you would be–

Peter Silva:

Yeah, I would be fine. I mean, you’re right. I mean, there’s probably the last six or eight feet nobody ever pulls up that far to the parking spaces. So, there’s at least eight feet of dead zone there.

Betty Cavacco:

We could look at all the people that would be he’d be happy, they’d be happy, happy everywhere.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, I definitely think we can look at the placement of the tables and certainly I would want to talk to the Fire Department to make sure it’s safe, and then we can work with the DPW to make sure that the table placement is appropriate and then try to figure out some parking up front of the Craft Beer Cellar.

Peter Silva:

Absolutely. And I’m willing to work. I want to see them succeed too, so.

Betty Cavacco:

So, could we move that? Could we move the licenses as long as there’s approval with the contingencies from Fire and DPW in agreement with Mr. Silva?

Peter Silva:

That works for me.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Chair?

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

I think I’d get Park Plymouth involve to let them know. It’s to get them involve too.

Dick Quintal:

Sure.

Charlie Bletzer:

I think that would be important, so they’ll come up with a solution so very satisfying.

Peter Silva:

That’d be great. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

So, that motion or do you want me to repeat it?

Dick Quintal:

Yes, please.

Betty Cavacco:

I’d like to make a motion to approve the outdoor seating for Roll Street Tavern with the contingencies that Mr. Brindisi mentioned for police, fire–no, yeah, Fire, DPW and Park Plymouth.

Patrick Flaherty:

I second that and just a comment.

Dick Quintal:

Sure, absolutely.

Patrick Flaherty:

So, I think this plan takes up two parking spots. I think to give them a goal of where we would draw the line and say, “You’ve been successful.” They could get one spot back and only take one spot then I think that would be a fair split. And so, if for some reason, you can’t go into the loading zone, just hypothetically an amendment here that they would only get one spot’s worth of tables, which might only be one table. But we preserve one spot and then if they can get a little loading zone area, and it’s all passed by public safety, then they can go farther that way, if not then they only get one spot maximum.

[0:25:11]

Dick Quintal:

Any more discussion or questions? All those in favor? All those in favor?

Harry Helm:

Quickly a question, is what we are voting on including Patrick’s caveat about the one space?

Betty Cavacco:

Well, yeah.

Dick Quintal:

We’re leaving it up to Derek and the town boards to make sure of its safety and if they meet all that and Peter is happy then it’ll go. If not–

Harry Helm:

Okay. Well, my question would be what if they find out that taking part of the loading zone is not safe and is not an option. I mean, Patrick, I believe was suggesting that if that’s not the case then one of the two spots could be–is that what you were suggesting, Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah. So, they could go forward because I think it’s supposed to start this weekend, so.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Brindisi.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, through the chair, I think what would the best course of action would be to meet with the Craft Beer and the restaurant owner along with Park Plymouth and Fire and just do a site visit. We can all stand out there, look at the space, see what’s safe, see how many tables we can get in there. At the same time, trying to accompany the request to have one parking space. So, if you can give us a chance to work on it, I think we can try to satisfy all parties that are involved.

Harry Helm:

May I make a suggestion Mr. Brindisi that included in this group is not just Mr. Silva but the two store owners because we have not heard from them. we have not heard from the owner of the Craft Beer Cellar or the owner of I believe is this the pet bakery? Dog bakery.

Peter Silva:

The dog bakery is my wife’s.

Harry Helm:

Okay.

Peter Silva:

And I’m here also representing Craft Beer because Tatum knows about it. Tatum’s my tenant as well as–yeah. So, we’re all together on this. We want to work with them but just trying not to give up that.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Cool. Thank you.

Peter Silva:

Sure.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. All those in favor? Unanimous upon meeting those requirements.

Public hearing for the Aquaculture licenses. Derek, that will be–who’s representing the aquaculture? Is it Chad? No, he’s here. We have one for Rick Vayo and one for Dobratz.

Chad Hunter:

So, I’m just here if the board had any questions. Both of these sites are in full compliance as far as the reporting and the use, and these transfers are consistent with two previous transfers we’ve had in the past.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. And it’s by the coordinates I guess you call them on the two pages listed, one for each site?

Chad Hunter:

Yes. So, both of these sites are existing sites within the Aquaculture Development Zone. It was Tara Auld is a transfer for Cam Dobratz and Jim O’Shea is the transfer for Rick Vayo. Both Tara and Jim have been an absolute pleasure to work with over the years. They’ve been doing it for quite some time, and they’ve always complied with all the rules and regulations.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Can we take both of these together or you’d rather us do them separate? Does it matter?

Chad Hunter:

It’s up to you.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

I’d like to make a motion to move as a group for Mr. Vayo and Mr. Dobratz for an Aquaculture License.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Mr. Bletzer. Questions or comments? Seeing none, all those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

Cordage Smokestack. We’re going to have a discussion on this. It was brought to our attention. I think it was last week, a week before, week and a half of it was inspected and Mr. Mayo’s here. So, good evening and welcome. Nick, if you could just walk us through what’s going on so the people watching and the people that are concerned know what really took place and where we’re at and what our options are, I guess.

[0:30:12]

Nick Mayo:

Sure. Thank you for having me tonight. For those who don’t know me, I’m Nick Mayo, I’m the Building Commissioner. A couple of weeks ago now, the owner of the tower had given me a phone call asking about the process with that tower.

Betty Cavacco:

Can you speak up a little?

Nick Mayo:

I’m sorry, can you not hear me? Is that better? So, a couple of weeks ago–

Harry Helm:

Just a quick question, how are you people in the back? Are you able to hear this?

People:

No.

Harry Helm:

Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

Yell.

Harry Helm:

Yell.

Nick Mayo:

Is this better?

Harry Helm:

Yeah, you have to–you really have to speak into the microphone or the speakers don’t pick you up at all.

Nick Mayo:

Okay, thank you. So, a few weeks back, the owner of the tower, Joe Jannetty gave me a phone call asking about the process for future development there and if the tower were to need to come down and what that process would be, what it would be subject to? We do have a local ordinance through our Historic District that requires any structure or building that’s 75 years old or older, that’s subject to our demolition delay. The caveat to that is if I determine that a building needs emergency demolition.

At that time, it was still undecided whether that building was going to be subject to that demolition delay by law. The owner mentioned to me that he had a report produced back in September of ‘21 that I had not yet seen or received. So, he provided it at that time. I reviewed that report. That report was produced by inspection and a report was performed by a chimney company, a masonry contractor. After discussion with council and reviewing this and some discussion with some of my counterparts, I made the decision that while that inspection was not produced by a local engineer, a structural engineer with a what we call a stamp certified in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it was basically determined that there’s enough level of competency there. One, that they’re a professional in the construction industry but two, they’re a professional in that type of construction. Okay? Brick masonry construction, that I’m compelled to take some form of action. So, at that time, a cease and desist was sent out to abate a dangerous situation, dangerous conditions and that’s where the fencing came in, the six-foot chain link fence. And part of that order, this is all through the 780 CMR, the State Building Code, which is under my authority here in town. I requested that a structural evaluation was done from a structural engineer and to follow up within seven days with that report. That’s what the owner did. After receiving that report, I reviewed it again, went over with it with some of my counterparts, the other inspectors in the office, town council and the decision unfortunately was made that the structure unfortunately needs to come down.

Part of this decision, just so you’re aware, we don’t take into consideration the cost that it would take to restore the structure or even the cost to remove it. It’s not cost driven. It’s simply whether the structure is in threat of collapse. Part of this decision was also based on the probability of collapse if someone were to go in there to try to preserve it. So, it’s highly likely that if someone goes in there to even stage it off around the building and actually anchor to the building with their staging to try to repoint it, remove the chimney cap, any of those types of process that you would typically have to do, it’s likely that it would come down while they were working on it. So, that’s really part of this discussion.

And it’s clear in my opinion and I guess that’s the one that matters in this case, based on the engineer’s report, the masonry contractor and the visual report, the visual pictures and the drone footage that I had that it’s long overdue. Something should have been done with this tower quite some time ago, and unfortunately it wasn’t and this is where we’re at with it now. It’s unfortunate, but this is where we’re at with it. I’m happy to answer any questions you might have. I’m sure you do.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you very much. Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

So, as you stated, something should have been done long ago. Obviously, it’s a very historical piece of Plymouth’s history.

[0:35:04]

Betty Cavacco:

It’s a landmark, it’s a nautical landmark, and are you saying that there is absolutely no way that we can save the tower?

Nick Mayo:

What I’m telling you is the current condition of the tower is in threat of collapse, and it has to be demolished. It could be rebuilt, but the preservation of it is not feasible. Of what’s currently existing there, it’s not feasible. It’s either in jeopardy of collapse in its entirety or a very large portion of it.

Betty Cavacco:

So, do we have–and that would be the owners of that development that would take that down. Now, do we have any estimate for what that cost would be? I know that the town manager and I had a conversation, and it was not an official conversation. It was just in passing to a mason and they believe that it could be restored, but you’re the Building Commissioner. So, I’m wondering if maybe, CPC, I know Mr. Keohan is here. I don’t know where he is.

Dick Quintal:

I think he’s in the back.

Betty Cavacco:

Here he is. Is there anything that we could do working with Mr. Jannetty, the town to try and do something with this? I understand this mason suggested that putting staging around the outside would maybe help a little bit, take down 60 or so feet and rebuild from there. So, I’m just–it’s–like I said, it’s a landmark of our town, and we’ve gotten quite a bit of emails and communications that the folks in the town want us to save it at all costs because of its historical meaning. So, I don’t know, Bill if you want to come up and give us a little chat like a quick chat.

Bill Keohan:

Yeah, quick. So, Bill Keohan with the Community Preservation Committee. We learned of this a few weeks ago, and I’ve been able to reach out to Massachusetts Historical, Preservation Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Historical Society. What I’m trying to track down right now is looking at possibly having a building conservation specialist look at the stack and prepare a report for us. It’s called a historical structures report. I’m in contact with Lynne Spencer with Spencer, Sullivan & Vogt. They’ve done reports for us in the past on The Meeting House on 1749. They’re working with us right now on the Spire. So, they’re active in our community. They’re well aware of this smokestack. I’m going to be meeting with them tomorrow if it’s okay. I’m going to reach out to the Jannetty family to see if we can be on site to take a look, because the next question really is, how quick can we get back an analysis of the structural integrity of this stack? Obviously, the next step would be figuring out, can it be saved? What would have to happen? Once we have that documentation from the historical preservationist, we can get an independent cost estimate of what that might cost, but it sounds like from what your Building Inspector is telling you and what the Jannetty family has conducted in bringing in engineers to say that the stack is in a very precarious situation, time is of the essence. So, our intention is to be out there tomorrow to meet with a building conservation specialist to see how long a report might take. We’re looking at focusing on the structural integrity of the object as outlined in the engineering report that you all have that the family has provided. So, that’s the track that we’re on. I think in the next 24 hours, I’ll be able to report back to the Board of Selectmen, in the Town Inspection Services and the Jannetty family where we’re on in terms of having something that they could look at before they took it down. So, at least when we go to deal with the situation, we have all the information on the table to make a rational decision about: does it have to come down? Must it come down? Those questions should be looked at after we’ve compiled some information, and we’re willing to go forward and do that.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

The only thing, Bill is we’re going to have to do it like in a timely fashion because–

Bill Keohan:

Right. So, the plan is to–

Dick Quintal:

Like the Building Inspector says, I mean, I’m no engineer, but I think the first thing that has to happen is the concrete has to come off the top.

[0:40:04]

Bill Keohan:

Right. So, our intention is to get the historical preservationist out there tomorrow to look at it to advise us so I can come back and let people know what they’re telling us at that point.

Dick Quintal:

All right. Go ahead, Patrick.

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you. And just a question for Nick and based on the reports that you’ve seen, if there are follow-up reports that might have more detail or filling in some data that you might not have, is there some condition that could come back where you’d change your statement right now, to do any work on it or to try and preserve it might actually cause it to collapse? Could that be changed based on a future report here or is that based on your experience? Because you have to sign off on it either way.

Nick Mayo:

Yeah, that’s a great question. So, it’s not likely. I have two valid sources that have already done a thorough review on this. One of them is here tonight, if you have any questions for them, the structural engineer. I’ve already issued an order that the thing needs to come down by noon of the following day of the receipt of the order. So, meaning it’s already coming down. Unfortunately, I don’t get any pleasure out of this. Just so we’re on the same page here, but that was advised from council as well when I did go over that with council. It’s not a decision to be taken lightly, for sure and it’s definitely unfortunate, but it’s really something that needs to happen.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer and then Mr. Helm.

Charlie Bletzer:

Nick, yeah, I know it has a lot of historic value but right now, we have a Building Commissioner who’s put it on the record that it’s a liability and my biggest fear is if somebody gets hurt trying to repair this or even going up and looking at if somebody gets hurt. He’s already on the record saying that it’s going to collapse. So, I think we have a serious liability issue right now, so we have to take that in mind.

Harry Helm:

Mr. Mayo, I could not hear your time frame that you gave. You gave an order for its demolition, and what was the time frame?

Nick Mayo:

So, the order–that’s a great question. The order is consistent with how the law requires me to handle this. So, it’s noon of the following day of the receipt of the order. So, the reality is it’s supposed to already be to the ground.

Harry Helm:

So, once you issued the order, they have until noon of the following day?

Nick Mayo:

That’s standard through the Building Code in Mass General Law. I believe it’s Chapter 143, Section 6 through 12, that this is the process. When you have an emergency situation like this, an unsafe structure, that’s how the law works and that’s how the building code does.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Another question, this may actually be for, you mentioned there’s an engineer here, it may be for them. Is there a possibility that the chimney could be deconstructed, the bricks saved and reconstructed?

Nick Mayo:

That’s a great question. I don’t have the answer to that. My interest is for the structure to come down. It is absolutely feasible for it to be rebuilt. Whether it’s the same bricks or new bricks, I don’t know at this time, but I would imagine that the demolition method would come into play with that. I do know, I believe the owner is currently working–the situation is unique enough in the type of construction in the structure that it is, it’s not like it’s a house where they can get any contractor just come in and get the thing to the ground and demolish it. So, they are putting out some fillers. They have a couple companies I believe giving them prices on them early this week. As of currently, they’re working on getting a contractor who specializes in demolition. So, we can ask them. I can certainly go over that with them. I’m going to be asking them for a plan myself and the Fire Department. We’re going to make sure we know how it’s going to be demolished. Basically, if they want to implode it, that would require some permitting through the Fire Department. I don’t think that’s a likely scenario, but it’s an option. There’s going to be some planning required for us to be aware of to make sure that the site is secure, they have a perimeter there for safety purposes just to demolish it anyway.

Harry Helm:

Sure. And I understand that a brick-by-brick type demolishment would be more expensive than just imploding it. So, I have a question for Mr. Keohan now.

[0:45:04]

Nick Mayo:

Sure.

Harry Helm:

Mr. Keohan, as you meet with various people, can you pursue an answer to the question that I posed? Can it be demolished and rebuilt from the original bricks?

Bill Keohan:

Yes, that can be examined as a possibility. That’s all we’re–the only thing I’m offering today from the perspective of the Community Preservation Committee is that we look into and talk to a historical building specialist to look at this as a possible examination for these things that I mentioned. In the end, this belongs to the Cordage. The Cordage can take it down. There’s nothing stopping it from doing that. Whether it is deemed dangerous or not, it’s their object and we don’t have any control over it. We’re just offering to work within the time frame of the Building Inspectional Services Office and the family that owns the chimney to see if there’s any chance that we can get in there and make an analysis, if anything just to document what is coming down for future generations can look at a document and see what we took down. But obviously, during its demolition which it sounds like it’s going to happen, that these materials could be reclaimed and repurposed or reused in some manner somewhere else. So, we will continue to do what we can in the limited time frame that we have.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, just on a personal basis. As a resident of Plymouth, I’m not a boater and I know it has significance to the boating community, but I do know that when I leave Duxbury, which is very often and come down Bay Road and look across the bay and see the smokestack there, I think of it as home. It’s a good feeling. The Smokestack matters and whatever we can do to try to–obviously, I don’t think we can preserve it but if it could be demolished in a logical way and then rebuilt obviously that would have to be costed out. I think it would be a worthwhile endeavor to look into.

Bill Keohan:

I mean, it’s not unheard of to save a stack of this nature in Manchester, New Hampshire, Lowell, Springfield, Worcester, they’ve gone to great extents to save their industrial history and this is a landmark. But in the end, the Town of Plymouth has limited control over the preservation of this. It requires cooperation and opportunities, but at this time, it’s limited in the time frame that we have. We’ll do what we can to at least document and provide as much information, but in the end, it is an example of the Town of Plymouth really needs to start to prepare and strengthen its historical preservation bylaws. This is an opportunity to step back and to realize that we have very little control of the buildings around us, and we should look at that. Because this is not the only building that’s threatened in Plymouth right now. We have the marina on the waterfront that is from 1857, the Plymouth Foundry, which is also under the same condition. It is owned by someone who has the right to take it down, and hopefully we can work with them to find some compromise to that. But when it comes to historical preservation, if you don’t own the object, it’s very difficult to preserve it. So, it’s a lesson to be learned.

Harry Helm:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

At this time, excuse me, I’d like to open it up to the audience because I believe some people are here to speak to this. So, is there anybody out there that like to–

Kristin Ligouri:

I would like to speak about it. I am the Property Manager at Cordage Commerce Center. I’d like to say something.

Dick Quintal:

Sure. Come on up. Just identify yourself up here, so everybody hears you.

Kristin Ligouri:

Good evening, I am Kristin Ligouri, I am the property manager at Cordage Commerce Center, and I’m here tonight to discuss the demolition of the Cordage Smokestack. This all came about recently during a land survey and evaluation when Best Chimney Services was brought out to inspect the integrity of the structure. With the use of drone imaging, they were able to get a close look and realize the amount of damage along the banded area. A structural engineer who we will hear from a little bit later, I believe further verified the findings and identified that significant deficiencies were in place throughout the entire length of the smokestack. Their findings and the extent of the deterioration was totally unexpected. At this time, the building and Fire Departments have deemed the smokestack to be a public hazard and the property is quickly taking action to comply with town ordinances.

[0:50:06]

Kristin Ligouri:

We are disappointed to see the removal of such a familiar and beloved structure within our Cordage property. Throughout the entirety of the Cordage development, the owners have made it a priority to have waterfront access for the community. As it had previously been walled off for years or as by head of maintenance said decades, it is now open to the public and can be enjoyed by all residents of North Plymouth. At this time, the removal of the smokestack is necessary to ensure the safety of all that come to the waterfront by the pier. As soon as the weather improves, many from the community will come to enjoy the area and so time is of the essence. The Smokestack is 210 feet tall, consists of approximately 500,000 bricks and has been a beacon of comfort in the community since 1899. Property ownership has plans to memorialize it and will continue to pay homage to both the smokestack and the significance of the Plymouth Cordage Company with its importance to Plymouth and maritime history. We will continue to fully support the Plymouth Cordage Museum as we have done for years, and will also create visible references throughout the property to inform visitors of the dynamic and deep roots at Cordage.

I spoke with a number of demolition contractors already. I have talked to them about retaining the brick as much as possible so that part has already been in discussion. Bill, I’m happy to meet with you tomorrow. I’ve got my card for you. And if there are any questions, this has all come about very quickly, so there are a lot of unknowns at this point, but I’m certainly happy to answer what I can. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

No questions, thank you.

Kristin Liguori:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco.

Betty Cavacco:

So, a friend of mine just sent me a message who’s a structural engineer and has done quite a bit of work for the town and his statement to me was, “That chimney is shown on the town of Plymouth’s oldest boundary map markers. It was used as a triangular station. You, the Selectmen are the caretakers of triangulation markers even if it’s on private property.” So, I think that’s something that we need to address. I don’t know, Derek who we talk to, maybe contact our legal council and see if that is actually the case.

Derek Brindisi:

Through the Chair, if you don’t mind, if you can forward me that message, I’d be happy to talk to council.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect, thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this? Mr. Lydon?

Steven Lydon:

Steven Lydon, I’m a Plymouth resident and I would hate to see this tower come down. It’s been there since–I’ve been here 40 years and I drive by to North Plymouth, and it is a landmark, but it’s unsafe. And I would take the Building Inspector, that’s what we hire him for, that’s his job. It’s been fenced off to keep people away from it. I don’t know if it’s safe to have people go in and do a historical study. I don’t know how close they get to the building, if they have to go up, I don’t know, but I don’t think that would be a safe thing to do. And if something happened to these people, who would be liable? And I think it’s a big risk to do that. So, I would agree with the Building Inspector. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Everett.

Everett Malaguti:

Everett Malaguti, Precinct 1 and a member of the North Plymouth Steering Committee. It’s very disheartening to hear for the entire population of Plymouth but more for the North Plymouth population that is endeared and love this icon for decades, if not centuries. And it’s basically been a part of the backdrop. Excuse me, part of the backdrop for Plymouth for so long. My family has had ties to it along with a lot of other people who’s here in this room and in the community that either worked there had family work at that company.

I also have other ties to it when my grandfather had his shoe store in the main tower building as well too as my family had worked in there for a while. Basically, if that smokestack was not here in the beginning, North Plymouth would not be here today in the form that it is. That entire complex built North Plymouth.

[0:55:02]

Everett Malaguti:

We can thank Cordage to actually giving us a vibrant part of the town, a nice, a collective part that has its own history of immigration and everything else to that that is the second wave that came well after the pilgrims but developed into the community that we have. I believe everything needs to be done and looked at regardless of the demolition order that was given in any form to preserve the structure for generations even if it does have to be piece by piece, brought down and rebuilt. I want this structure to be a part of history going forward as well as part of a legacy for the community if not just the North Plymouth community. And if there does have to be a memorial done too, I would like it to be a substantial memorial not like the little small memorials that have been done like with the man in the mountain in New Hampshire and stuff like that. It needs to be a lot grander scale than that because that is Plymouth. It’s part of the entire fabric of this town and if nothing is done with it then North Plymouth especially has lost basically just about all of its historic character to it. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? Seeing no one. Thank you, Mr. Mayo. I understand the safety issues of it and your job and I also understand Everett, and I’m with you on what it means to the people in North Plymouth. On the other hand, the Jannetty’s have been very good neighbors. They’ve always done a good job. So, we’re asking them to try to comply with what they have there, but let’s not junk it yet, let’s just take one more look. Before whatever happens, I think there’s probably a day before that happens. My grandparents worked there. That’s where Plymouth started after they landed pretty much. A lot of history.

The thing that really bothers me about it is why does it have to come down today? Now, I get it, I saw the report, I have seen it, but what prompted that? Was it an inspection that was done? If it is then they’ve been building there for quite a while or is it because it’s in the way of a marina that’s going to go right in front of it? These are the things I asked myself that provoked this, and if that’s the reason they want it out of the way? Because until this report, I believe it was listed that that was supposed to stand. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, and I get the whole safety thing and I get the things been issued for demolition, but my question it, was it in prior agreements that the stack would stay? And that’s really my question, not the safety of it. And I believe it can be rebuilt, at least I hope it can. I know Bill told me that they’ve done it in Lexington in three other communities, so I’m going to stay positive on it. We heard your concerns. We also heard the concerns of the Building Inspector and Town Services. So, let’s see what happens, but I thought it needed due diligence to talk about it just like the next item. So, thank you all. If we hear anything or anything changes, we’ll let you all know. Wait to hear from Bill tomorrow. Anything else from the board? Thank you.

Okay. Next will be the County Wood Lot- Thoroughbred Racetrack Discussion – Proposal, and to give some use of you a brief history of what has been happening the last couple of weeks, it was a lot of–there are rumors every day, I guess. But the rumor was there’s all this stuff going on and nobody knew about it and I had the press asking me, and they wanted me to make comments on it and I can’t comment on something I really didn’t have the information on. So, last Friday at 9:00 a.m., which is what I told everybody that was listening, we had a meeting in the Great Room.

[1:00:04]

Dick Quintal:

We invited most of our town staff: building, planning, conservation, public safety, DPW, state delegation. We brought, I brought as many players into the room to ask questions I might have a concern. So, we heard a little about the proposal on Friday. After that, I told you that I would answer what I could today. However, I don’t believe that all your answers or concerns will be answered today, but it’s a starting point. And at this time, I would like to turn it over to–are they in here? Well, there, I’m sorry. Loring will be starting off the conversation.

Loring Tripp:

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, I’m Loring Tripp. I am the Director of Planning and Community Development for Boston South Real Estate and Development LLC. As the Chairman spoke, we’ve been in a process over the past few months in cooperation with the Plymouth County and the Commissioners to work through an RFP process of which we were awarded this past month. As one of seven people who withdrew the RFP, we were the only one that responded with the RFP in this past week. The past two weeks, we’ve been awarded that and then finalized the agreement which will be ratified at the end of this month. What that RFP speaks to and I want to just kind of lay out the actual process for the community. Yes?

Dick Quintal:

Loring, if you could speak up or move the mic closer, because it’s very hard to hear in here.

Loring Tripp:

Sorry, I apologize. It’s been a while since I’m at the podium. I’m a little rusty. So, with me tonight, I just want to introduce Jim Bristol and Will O’Connell, they’re managing members of Boston South LLC. As I said, that we’re in this process and I want to explain the process, because I think there’s been a lot of concern that just hearing one of the proposed uses for the site has obviously garnished a little bit of attention, but I want to explain to people the process that we’re going through here, and it starts with the RFP process.

So, now, that the RFP has been awarded to us, the first step will be a 90-day due diligence on the property. So, really 90, the next 90 to 120 days will be no different than any commercial operation. In that, we’ll be doing the research on the site, checking all the titles, deeds, access basically the standard due diligence that you’d find in any project. If we agree to move past those 90 days then we then enter into a three-year due diligence process with the county. In that time, we do our planning, engineering but most importantly our community outreach, working with the town, the county, the state to address all the components that looking to develop this significant piece of property entail. So, we’re really at the beginning of the beginning of what will be probably a three-to-four-year process in evaluating what that will be. Now, I think it’s important to back up and explain what the RFP was for and why the county was looking to engage in this.

The county is looking to create a permanent revenue stream to help support the services that Plymouth County for 27 communities provides for a long-term revenue stream, to create a long-term revenue stream. We all know the trials and tribulations of running government and when it comes down to just taxes as a stream, it becomes always a difficult pill to swallow for the community and I think the commissioners have really taken a forward look to see how they can monetize their asset to benefit all the citizens of Plymouth County, and that’s where we come in as a partner. And our commitment is, over those three years, to spend anywhere from $4 to $6 million dollars to go through that evaluation process to find what these highest and best uses are. That we’re here at the very beginning of this is basically one of our partners who is not here tonight but was one of the principals his name is Vince Gabbert. He’s the current Vice President of Keeneland a racetrack, thoroughbred racetrack organizations from Kentucky. He was here this past week, was able to meet with some of the local officials, and we’ll be back here in the next few weeks as we work through the beginning of the process.

[1:05:08]

Loring Tripp:

But I can tell you that for certain that is the one use that I can say to you tonight is one that we are bringing to the table. And we’re not talking about your typical thoroughbred racing organization. Vince is one of the leading and most foremost experts on horse racing in the world. He runs a $500 million a year organization at Keeneland where they have state-of-the-art facilities. They lead the country in the humanitarian treatment of horses, in the care and protection and safety for the riders as well as world-class facilities for conventions, entertainment and sporting and gaming. So, that is the real deal that we’re talking about that we can confirm is the foundation by which the rest of what we hope to bring is a world-class sports gaming and entertainment center. And what that means is that we’ll be looking at everything from sports fields, entertainment venues, could be minor league baseball. We don’t know what it is yet or how this combination will come together, but our commitment to the county, and it’s in the RFP is that we need to look at every opportunity that might be available that will generate that permanent revenue stream for Plymouth County moving forward.

So, basically, that’s kind of just to give you kind of where we are in the process that this is a beginning, the beginning of a process and it’s the beginning of the end of the RFP process for us not to be church alike in saying this is the beginning of the end of the beginning, but that’s really where we’re at. And we’re here tonight to like I said be transparent, upfront, quell any misinformation or misunderstanding about who we are, what’s being proposed. I can tell you that we’re not quite sure what the final look is, but we’re looking forward to working with the town, its citizens, the state and the county to come up with what I hope will be a successful economic engine that will promote tourism, will bring jobs, significant jobs just the one facility that we’re talking about when in regards to thoroughbred horse racing could be in excess of three to five thousand jobs. That’s the type of I think opportunity that’s here on the table and that we’re looking to explore cooperatively with the community. So, any questions or comments between the three of us, I’m sure we could–

Dick Quintal:

Any questions or comments from the board at this time?

Charlie Bletzer:

I have one.

Dick Quintal:

Betty and then Charlie and then Patrick.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, Mr. Tripp. So, I think one of the things that we’ve received several emails for and against, of course and one of the things that, we–some of the questions that we’ve received is that they keep calling it a horse track or horse racing, but it’s much more than that. And until you do your due diligence, you don’t even know if it’s going to be a horse track. I know that there is like testing of the ground and all those other things that you have to do. So, this is the initial. This is what we want to do kind of thing, and you’re just informing us because I don’t believe that the Select Board has jurisdiction over this property anyway. So, this is the beginning steps of the process that you want to go through?

Loring Tripp:

Absolutely.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Charlie Bletzer:

Thanks, Loring. To all the as Betty said, all the people out there, all the negative, I mean, it’s just being presented tonight and the first time I’m here. Okay, sorry. For all the people that we’re getting a lot of negative emails, I’m just hearing about this tonight. It’s the first thing that we’ve heard about it, and I can tell you in the last 10 or 12 years, we’ve had no economic development in Plymouth. We’ve had none. So, we have to at least listen, be open-minded and listen to this group. You’re talking thousands of jobs, you’re talking–how much revenue do you anticipate tax revenue commercial?

Loring Tripp:

We’re committing to at the higher echelon of $500 million investment in Plymouth and in regards to revenue. To just use Keeneland as an example, and the people don’t realize really where the revenue streams are with this, is they are the world’s largest sales like a Sotheby for thoroughbred race horses and elite horses with a sales annual average of $500 million a year.

[1:10:22]

Loring Tripp:

So, that sales tax alone for Plymouth is significant, never mind the revenue based on a $500 million investment, which I believe the Director of Finance the other day did a quick calculation, would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $8 million a year in tax revenue, property itself.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. So, $8 million, and it’s something that we need. We need to get some commercial tax revenue. They still have to go through all the boards. I mean, there’s a lot of work to do before they get–you’re talking probably a couple of years of you’re going to spend would you say $4 to $6 million just doing the studies. So, I want to be–I’m going to be open-minded about this. I’m actually excited about it if this goes through the way I think. And obviously, as far as animal abuse, nobody likes that, but thoroughbred racing, they just said that these animals will be well cared for. I’m sure there’ll be a lot of inspections because they’ll be under the microscope, and I’m sure the state will be inspecting the conditions of the horses. And so, I just ask everybody to just be open-minded and let’s see what this group has to offer us. Thank you.

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you for the overview, Loring. And you said something a minute ago or maybe just following up on Betty’s comment about the nature of the next couple of years of development plans. I heard when you were speaking, you said that the idea of the thoroughbred racetrack and the betting portion of that is that’s what you’re bringing to the table now. Are there any other parts of that plan that are going to be brought forward as a commitment in first phase or is it really leading with that as the anchor and then there might be some other maybes down the line, but what else do you foresee coming down the line? If it’s only the horse track to start with just–

Loring Tripp:

So, what we have to look at and the $5 to $6 million that we’re talking about investment is basically coming from the financing primarily in support of the thoroughbred horse racing, to do that analysis up front at our risk for the next three years. We’re going to spend the money and work through this process publicly, transparently and honestly with this community as we move forward. But what that will do is create a catalyst by which other opportunities will present themselves. And what those can be from getting the attention of the state and federal government for the needed traffic improvements that are needed in that area. We already know that whether this project goes forward or not, Long Pond Road and the choke point at the bridge and the need to complete the interchange already exists with or without us. Will we help provide a catalyst to get that kind of investment in Plymouth? I hope we will, but in regards to the additional development that may occur, as I stated some of the sports facilities, but we’ve also been in high level discussions with other industries, two of which one is a $12 billion market cap industry and a $50 billion market cap industry that have both expressed interest in locating here in Plymouth. And those discussions happened as recently as yesterday afternoon. So, those are the things that if we were able to move forward and show that we have a landing pad that’s suitable, that has access, that has utilities.

The other thing that we didn’t mention is that we bought the wastewater treatment plant. We’ve got a million gallons of capacity. We’d love to help support that and pay for that through the use next door, which would save us from having any direct discharge of wastewater on site. These are the things that as we get into this conversation, these are the elements that will be on the table and discussed as we move forward.

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you. And so, in the event that you’re following through this, and you said community outreach is a big part of any project like this. Say you reach a point where a thoroughbred racetrack and the gambling is just not something that’s being necessarily like, it’s not following through, the community is not necessarily for or there are different hiccups with this project, would there still be a commitment to make a significant investment in this area if it was not for having that there?

[1:15:01]

Loring Tripp:

Our contractual agreement with the county is to explore the highest and best uses that may present themselves on this property. Although we feel that there is completely a market for our proposal, everything is on the table. Everything is on the table to explore how we can create that. So, like I say, I can’t predict the future. If I did, I would have hit the lottery a long time ago, but I know that there’s always concerns in the community about gaming and the like. Let’s not forget that Plymouth has enjoyed more than $20 million dollars in gaming money from the Massachusetts State Lottery over the past 10 years and that there’s gaming on every corner at every 7-Eleven, in every restaurant. So, we want to just be open and have an open dialogue with the community and lay it all on the table, but we want to be realistic and let’s look at the reality on the ground. And how we’re going to move this forward is exactly why we’re here tonight upfront, frontend engagement on this property.

Patrick Flaherty:

And one more question for right now, every once in a while, we have those issues that come forward where, as we’ve alluded to, spark of a lot of public interest, and from the nature of the emails coming in and calls and that type of thing, this is definitely one of those. So, outreach to the community I think is critically important to get their input, and I’m just curious to hear not that you have like “It’s this date, that date,” but kind of like broadly, what do you see as the community engagement going forward regarding this project?

Loring Tripp:

Well, it started tonight with a few of the neighbors that are here this evening. One of my old high school friends are here. They live in Tall Pines, right next door. So, we’ve made a commitment tonight and then make it publicly now that we’re available, I’m available, I’ve handed out cards and we intend to be right up front and right out there with our neighbors. This past Saturday, I had the great opportunity to go to the Black Feather Horse Rescue charity and meet Darlene herself, a true saint when it comes to the protection and care of horses, and we made a commitment because she’s also our neighbor, right there to the south of us. That we have parallel ideologies and beliefs in the care and protection of horses. And that as we move forward, we would like to partner with her and help her efforts as well as being a good neighbor. So, that’s our commitment.

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions? Harry?

Harry Helm:

Following up on Patrick’s line of questioning. In this process, are there any mechanisms to determine whether the community agrees with this usage or not? And if there are mechanisms, are you going to follow them if the community decides that the community does not want thoroughbred racing or racetrack in Plymouth?

Loring Tripp:

Absolutely. I think I neglected because I know some of us, some of you all know my past history, but maybe the majority don’t spend quite a while. I was a former member of the Plymouth Planning Board and Chair for over 10 years. I think if you look back at that time that I was a strong advocate for process and public involvement, and that is really going to be the hallmark of this development team, that we will follow all the applicable laws, guidelines, mechanisms for the preview, design, planning, public outreach of a project of this magnitude. We are fully aware that this project will be transformative for Plymouth, and we’re hoping that all that transformation is in a positive way. So, that’s our commitment right here up front and that’s why we’re here tonight.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions or comments? Okay. I’m going to take a few questions, but I mean, I can’t take tons of them. So, I will let a few individuals speak for three to four minutes, if that’s fair. If you need more time, please ask. But like I say, they’re bringing a presentation to what they’re working on. And I don’t know if the questions you’re going to ask or make comments to can even be answered. So, that being said, we’ll start with Mr. Serkey because he’s my favorite.

[1:20:04]

Rich Serkey:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rich Serkey, town meeting member, precinct 2. The speakers who will follow me will speak to why a racetrack should not be built on the Wood Lot. What I would like to speak to you is why a racetrack cannot legally be built on the Wood Lot. At a prior commissioner’s meeting, the following claim was made, “The County as a higher government is not restrained by local zoning if the land use is for the benefit of the county, but if the property were sold, the underlying zoning would be law.” That was too broad a statement. A more correct statement would have been, “The County as a higher government is not restrained by local zoning if the land is used for a governmental purpose, but if the property were sold, the underlying zoning would be law.” Thus, the use of the property for a firefighting training area or for a cell tower equipped with public service use sections was deemed to be immune from local zoning, because both are governmental purposes. But the use of the land for example to remove sand and gravel was deemed not to be immune from local zoning, because it is solely a commercial purpose. If that were not the case, why were applications for special permits from the Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals filed by Kingstown Corporation in order to lease the Wood Lot to Kingston for the purpose of gravel removal, which resulted in favorable decisions by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2015 and 2018.

The case law is clear, and I’ve supplied it by email to the board. The case law is clear that commercial use of the county-owned Wood Lot would indeed be subject to Plymouth zoning. I’ve sent you, as I said, material from a zoning treatise that collected that case law. Since most of the proposed racetrack would be located in the rural residential portion of the Wood Lot and since commercial uses are not permitted in the rural residential district, and since the issuance of use variances is not authorized by the Plymouth zoning bylaw, it would require an amendment to the zoning bylaw by a two-thirds vote of town meeting to allow a racetrack to be built on the Wood Lot. I do not understand how this threshold issue escaped the notice of council for the county, council for the town and council for Plymouth South before the project progressed this far. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Well, this is the first meeting they’ve had. So, I mean, how else would you would like me to do this? I’m just asking because I try to do everything, so everyone knows what’s going on. So, if you could just answer that one question, how would you have done it differently if you were right?

Rich Serkey:

If I were them?

Dick Quintal:

No, that wasn’t my question.

Rich Serkey:

Sorry.

Dick Quintal:

Well, unless you were directing your question to the county who’s not here. This is the first night that this community has actually heard and seen this proposal.

Rich Serkey:

What I would recommend is that Plymouth South get an opinion from its attorney, you get an opinion from town council and the county get an opinion from its attorney. And I am as certain as I am of the fact that this is Tuesday, that the conclusion will be that legally this project cannot be built on this lot because most of the racetrack, almost all of it is in the rural residential zone and that use is precluded. So, I would think the place to start would be to get legal opinions.

Dick Quintal:

It’s duly heard, and we probably will but like I just keep saying, this was the first. I’m doing what I told everybody I would do, and there’s going to be many hearings. And of course, all that stuff is going to have to be looked at. I mean, like I said, this is–we’re 10 minutes into it, but we will look at it, we’re listening to the community.

[1:25:10]

Rich Serkey:

Understood.

Dick Quintal:

That’s all, okay.

Charlie Bletzer:

Can I ask Mr. Serkey a question?

Dick Quintal:

Sure. If you don’t mind, Mr. Serkey.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Serkey, now if town meeting changes the zoning bylaw–

Rich Serkey:

I’m sorry?

Charlie Bletzer:

If town meeting by two-thirds votes changes the zoning bylaw, then it could be done, right?

Rich Serkey:

Yeah.

Charlie Bletzer:

Thank you.

Rich Serkey:

I mean, if there were an amendment to the zoning bylaw that would allow this use on this land, it probably would be subject to a special permit. Then of course, all bets are off. I’m just going on the basis of the current zoning and I’m also going on the basis of experience that getting a two-thirds vote from town meeting is a heavy lift.

Charlie Bletzer:

These folks have already said that they’re doing a 2 or 3-year study, so who knows things may change, and maybe they’ll change the bylaw of the town meeting, who knows? But it’s not impossible. Okay, thanks.

Dick Quintal:

Pat?

Pat McCarthy:

Pat McCarthy, Precinct 5, county meeting member for quite a long time. I live at 156 Long Pond Road. 156 Long Pond Road is not far from the piece of land that the county bought from a private owner a few years ago at 144 R Long Pond Road, which abuts the parcel of land that we’re talking about tonight. And in some of the material that I’ve read, the county has talked about access points they hope to buy or acquire that are named in that 80-plus page report and one is their access points. They looked to me like they’re coming in off of Raffaele Way off of Camelot Drive, but I’m not sure, but there are two parcels of land they’re going to buy. Also, in light of the residential area that I belong to and Tall Pines Road behind me, they kind of discounted that the Tall Pines Road is just kind of a small residential subdivision and that they would have at least a 325-foot buffer, which kind of like put disregard to some of the environmental concerns, aquifer concerns, a lot of concerns about that lot.

One of my other concerns is that I’m not sure where all of these total tax benefits are coming from since the county to my knowledge doesn’t pay any resident any taxes and I don’t think we have a pilot from them and these millions of dollars of the 500-million-dollar development, I mean, we’re going to get some revenue from meals tax probably because we’re going to have lots of restaurants, bars, whatever, but I’m not really sure about that if that was such a benefit since they’re not buying the land. It’s a lease agreement that the county is going to get. It’s said in the RFP, I think up to 100,000 a year or so was mentioned in part of the report. So, those are just my concerns and questions. And also, with the school complex in the area, I’m concerned about that. So, there are many questions and concerns. I haven’t read every page of the 80 plus pages so I’m sure I’ll be back to you with more concerns. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Pat. Mr. Mand.

Frank Mand:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Frank Mand, I live in Precinct 3, and I want to say that tonight I’m speaking not as a member of the Planning Board but as a long-time resident of Plymouth. There are a lot of things that concern me about this proposal, but I’ll keep this short or relatively so. One of my concerns is simply that the County has no business making a proposal that if realized would change the very nature of our community and culture. They have no standing, in my opinion.

[1:30:00]

Frank Mand:

That is, I believe you would have to look long and hard for a resident who sincerely believes that the County has the best interest of the community at heart. They have not been exactly good stewards of this property. I was a reporter nearly a decade ago when I was shown a section of the Wood Lot where the county had allowed the land to be used as a dump. There were old fire trucks, there was a cell tower and there was plenty of concrete and steel debris that at some point was supposed to be used to train for structural disasters and earthquakes, but it was a mess. It’s still a mess. The county also proposed a massive solar array on the Wood Lot, for which they would have had to clear-cut approximately 75 acres or more. Thank goodness that never happened.

Desperate for money at the time, they made a deal with a local trucking company to cut a five-acre sandpit at the highest, the most pristine and forested part of the Wood Lot. Since that time, since that pit was dug, they’ve allowed the woods and meadows of what was largely a pristine site to become a de facto dirt bike track. Right now, or this past weekend if you visited the site, you would have seen dozens and dozens of dirt bike riders carving up a pristine meadow that during the summer should have all sorts of wonderful species, wildflowers and such. After the sand and gravel was removed from that five-acre pit, in 2018, the county created what I thought was a face-saving Wood Lot Subcommittee that was supposed to meet regularly and whose stated goal was to come up with the best possible use for the remaining undeveloped property. That group met just a handful of times and coincidentally was disbanded just this past month as the RFP was opened for this proposal.

Another concern of mine is that this is being considered it all. It is in my opinion, the last thing the town needs or wants. It is yet another dream world, yet another Hollywood East. We don’t seem to learn that most basic of lessons, if it sounds too good to be true, guess what? Finally, I would note that there are similarities and I believe actual connections between this project and another proposal for a racetrack and casino just a few miles away in Wareham. That racetrack proposal had the strong backing of nearly every elected board in Wareham. That proposal required, as I believe this would as well, a zoning change to make it happen. That proposal was rejected by their town meeting. When they took the vote, thousands of people showed up and over 80% of those attending voted no. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

I’m going to give you two more. Ma’am, you first.

Elise Bruno [?]:

Hello, my name is Elise Bruno. I live at Tall Pines Road for the past couple of years now. I’ve been talking with the committee about this issue. We’ve had many meetings with the County Wood Lot Committee about this, and they have not been very transparent with us. I want to make this short. I think the main issues with developing this land would be the traffic issue that they had mentioned. I think the noise pollution should be addressed as we are within half a mile from where this is going to happen. Another issue is the smell pollution of all the horse poo and everything, and there are environmental concerns as there’s never been an environmental survey done in this area. There are multiple, vulnerable or threatened species that are in that Wood Lot. I also wanted to mention a couple of things that I thought were interesting about the issues with the smokestack. You guys were concerned about the historical value of the smokestack and I wanted to say that the historical value of the Wood Lot is that it’s part of a globally rare ecoregion that is quickly diminishing. If history is a part of Plymouth, then this Wood Lot needs to be conserved. The trees in there, the pitch pine take over 30 years to reach maturity.

[1:35:06]

Elise Bruno:

I think another thing I mentioned about the smokestack that’s important is that one of you mentioned that it feels like home when you see that smokestack, the Wood Lot is home to hundreds of species of Plymouth. Plymouth is America’s Hometown, that’s our most important historical value we have, and the County Wood Lot is an extension of my home. I’m in that Wood Lot every single day. I come across my neighbors. I see their dogs. We are all out there. It’s more than just a Wood Lot to be converted into commercial use.

You say it’s for economic reasons, but I think you’re forgetting an important economic aspect is environmental valuation. We have certain services from that Wood Lot that are economically important. For instance, it’s on top of the Plymouth-Carver sole source aquifer. That means that 50% of the water under there can be used for drinking water. If we mess with that, and it becomes contaminated, we have an economic problem on our hands. We’d have to invest money into resources to clean that water so that we may drink. That is of high importance with all the other developments going on in this area.

Another thing you guys mentioned with the smokestack was that prior agreements are important when considering remodeling and doing stuff to that. The prior agreement for the Plymouth County Wood Lot is that it was deeded to the inhabitants of Plymouth to go and gather wood and resources for their homes. I gather wood to light my fire at home, I need the Wood Lot. Taking it for granted for a horse racing track doesn’t make sense in that area. If you think of the way our neighborhood is situated, the access point is between two of my neighbors’ houses. It’s not feasible to put this huge stadium in that area.

I just think that other things need to be considered than just the money that can be gained in the short-term gain of that whereas this woodlot has been in deeded to the inhabitants of Plymouth since the early 1800s. It has historical significance and taking it away from the community is a bad move. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. One more. Ma’am?

Kathleen Fitzgerald:

Good evening, my name is Kathleen Fitzgerald. I live at 15 Theatre Colony Way. I do not live in the area that is being talked about, but I am very, very concerned about this. When the gentleman spoke earlier, he talked about open dialogue that he was going to be doing. It’s almost too late. We are hearing about this as you are for the very first time within the past couple of days. That’s not open dialogue. Respectively, I oppose this proposal. What do you want Plymouth to be? For years, we have prided ourselves in being America’s Hometown. Tourists come to see the Mayflower, Plymouth Plantation and other important sites. Do we really want to change our image to that of a gambling horse racing town? I think not.

Second, that has been stated by others, traffic. Long Pond Road is a mess. There is so much traffic right now and a new development of over 500 homes that hasn’t even come into fruition. What is going to happen with the traffic? They state that they are going to do an assessment on the traffic. They need to if they do an assessment truly tell us what the impact is because it is going to be immense. Why do Suffolk Downs close? If you google that question, it will say that Suffolk Downs closed because there was a lack of interest in live horse racing. Between 1985 and 2015, horse racing has declined 3%. What does that mean in millions of dollars? About 500 million dollars. Also, drugs have become quite prevalent in horse racing. Just look at last year’s Kentucky Derby.

[1:40:05]

Kathleen Fitzgerald:

I know that the gentleman stated that they have this man from Kentucky who has all this experience with horse racing. Does he think we’re going to become the Plymouth Derby? God forbid. Another major problem I have is that the majority of Plymouth residents know nothing about this plan. The first time I heard about it was just two weeks ago. I heard about this meeting last night, last night. They want open dialogue, it’s got to be a heck of a lot better than what they’ve been doing right now. Now, there is this meeting and the Plymouth County commission is supposed to vote on whether to accept something on Thursday night, that seems unbelievable. Something that could impact our community, and not necessarily in a positive way should not be pushed through without first letting all the residents have a voice. Second, the impact study on how this will affect our town it should definitely be done before things go too far. Finally, I implore the Selectmen to put the brakes on this development, if you possibly can. Our committee has seen our outdoor space decline over the years. Developments that cut down trees for hundreds of housings, shopping centers that are so spread out that you can’t walk from one store to the other, you have to drive. I understand that we need to keep Plymouth going in a positive direction, but do we really have to go to such an extreme with hundreds of new homes raping our forest when we need our trees desperately for climate change and now to become the gambling center of Massachusetts? We really need to reassess our priorities and this horse racing gambling plan is a great way to start. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Like I said, this is the–yeah, this is the beginning of this process and I apologize that you didn’t know we’re going to talk about this tonight because I did say it last week. And if you call the office and ask for Mr. Badot, anybody in the room. Yeah, I know, but she didn’t know, and I get it. So, what I’m saying is anybody that wants to call or email Chris and be on an email list, we have no problem with that. That way all you out there can be notified. Mr. Tripp?

Loring Tripp:

Sure. First, I just want to validate every comment that everyone made. I just want everyone to realize that this is a public process. We are a society. We are a society of self-government, and while thousands of people are dying across the world to fight for these very rights, we should enjoy and appreciate even though we may not agree. Let’s be thankful for that. But I’d just like to make sure that everyone knows, that I completely hear every word you’re saying and that this process that we’re going to engage in is going to engage everyone in this dialogue of where this project will go, where Plymouth is going to go in the future and what it wants to be. And we are not here to rush any project through, take any advantage of any loopholes in zoning or government use. We intend to vet this out completely and thoroughly and cooperatively with the community. It’s not exactly and I appreciate everyone here who feels like this just got dropped on them tonight and that it’s been in the works for a while. It has been in the works for a while, because many months ago, the county publicly advertised as duly required under the law in Massachusetts General Laws under the State of Massachusetts to advertise it, and it was completely advertised. The RFP process went out, and it’s been following the legal framework for which it proceeds.

I can identify with so many of you in this, because when I first got involved, I live across the street from a little project that jumped on top of us without us knowing called the Pine Hills Development and I ran for office, and I was elected because of a project just like this. So, hopefully, it’ll create more enthusiasm in participating in public government, because it’s a fantastic experience and I think that really as we move forward together today, we’re not going to solve any questions or anything answers here tonight, we just all have to agree that it’s the beginning of a process of which we’ll work together. And hopefully through this democratic process, we’ll come to a solution, a direction and a plan that benefits everyone involved. And that’s from our heart, our commitment.

[1:45:11]

Dick Quintal

Thank you.

Patrick Flaherty:

Can I ask a question?

Dick Quintal:

Yup, go ahead.

Patrick Flaherty:

Loring, can I ask you just one follow-up question?

Loring Tripp:

Yes, sir.

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you. I appreciate that commitment to hearing from, and you heard from the folks tonight, this is a really, really important issue. And I was thinking about one of the comments earlier about the different mechanisms that we have to hear from our residents, and we do have an election coming up that has the ability to put a non-binding question to ask this very question to all of our voters, is that something that you feel would be a good idea to sort of get a temperature of the town to feel how this project might be received?

Loring Tripp:

It would be unfortunate to put that to the voters without any information in front of them. I’ll be honest, I’m a big fan of non-binding referendums. Many of you may not realize, but I was the one who petitioned the Board of Selectmen to bring the Community Preservation Act to Plymouth, and it passed by over 72%. But that was a process of months of educating the public to what it was to get that result, to get the will of the people. And I think in a democratic society, we want to make sure that the voters who direct the direction of government and society and self-governance have that information in advance, so they can make an informed vote. So, in a future date, when we start vetting this, if there is a public a desire to get the will of the people, I’m all for it. I’m an American. We’re all Americans. We’re here to live this way under self-governance. This is the beauty of what we’re doing here tonight. Right? So, this is what it’s all about, my friends. This is America. Thank God.

Patrick Flaherty:

And I guess, what I was hearing from some of the folks and reading a lot of the comments coming towards is that there’s two sides of things that are being questioned and asked. There’s a lot of like the logistical issues and traffic and all that type of thing, which we know it’s a long game to figure that out and how that gets to be done. Let’s say, public safety, all of that type of thing. But then there’s another issue that has been brought here tonight and to all of us is just the idea of the project, like the concept. I think there’s been enough people who have really voiced their opinions on not necessarily the logistics of it but really the concept of it that I think this might be one of those very good reasons to have a question like that.

Loring Tripp:

I thoroughly agree. I mentioned the Pine Hills and actually my former colleague Mr. Filler here who sat in on the majority before I even got on the board at the time. We had 50 public hearings on the Pine Hills, before there was ever a permit filed or anything. I’m fully aware of what the public process needs to be, and I implore the community to take a step back and say, “Okay. Let’s go through a real process, a real community discussion.” We’d like to bring our friend and I think you’ll appreciate his Southern charm and honesty to come up here and educate the community on what he’s proposing. Because he’s not proposing your typical racetrack proposal. This is a completely different proposal, and it’s a model for what I think the future of racing will be and how it works. I think the community deserves to have that conversation and have him bring that to the community. And then we can go into the dialogues of all the things. Traffic, let’s face it, traffic. We all hate traffic, but we’re the participants in it as soon as we jump in our car. It’s almost self-hate in a way, but we know we got to deal with it. Every one of these topics deserves an in-depth discussion and analysis of how it’s going to impact it. And whether we develop this property or not, Plymouth still has the same problems with it or not. Let’s now remember our history, we all thought back in the 1800s Cordage Park, great facility came in. In the 70s, it went down, left a huge economic hole in the heart of Plymouth. We now know what the Pilgrim Power Plant and the hole that that’s leaving in our community and the aftermath, for millennia. We don’t want to make mistakes. And I’m the first to say, I don’t want to see Plymouth repeat its mistakes, but I think what we have here is an opportunity to work as a community to determine the future of this land because someday something’s going to happen. We need more industrial land, and we need to protect our environment. Well now we can join in a dialogue to see how we can achieve both ends to a common goal. Thank you.

[1:50:08]

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. I’ve heard all that you said, but as Select Board, we have to hear proposals when someone brings one to us and that’s what this is tonight, it’s the first time of many meetings. If you can get this project whatever it might be out in 50 then you’re going fast. On a serious note, last year, Plymouth had $3 million in new growth. What does that mean to you, the taxpayers of the community? It means, it can’t fly much longer like that. You might have three years left in budgets, maybe four, the new growth has to go up. We have planners in here tonight and I know they have different hats on, but the ones that are here and the ones that are running for office, let me ask you this, please, you’re the planners of our community. Help us here. You all know how to do this, you know how to do that, give us a plan that shows us where the commercial development should happen in this community of 106 square miles. Are we built out? Do we not want any more? The tax is just going to keep going up. In the fifth year after this year unless something crazy happens and heavens knows it happens, do we start closing fire stations? Do we cut back on police? Do we close the school? This is the things you weigh when you sit in this chair, all these chairs. We get blamed for everything, and that’s okay. Because if you don’t want to get blamed, you definitely don’t want to run for this job. But that being said, on a serious note, we have to come together the community and see how are we going to address these things. We can cut.

So, when I first heard it, I said, “You know what, I’ll listen to you. That’s my job.” That would be like me saying, “I don’t want to listen to any of you tonight.” In my younger day, I might have tried that, but now I listen to everybody and I heard the concerns. They asked me one day what the three top concerns were. The first thing out of my mouth was the traffic. We don’t need any development on Long Pond Road. We already have too much it already is a mess. All these things have to be addressed. Why did I run for this office? I’ll give you one reason, because they’re putting 300 to 400 hundred units in the Home Depot, a commercial area. Okay? That should have never happened. It should have never happened, because that that was good commercial space. And now, we’re having all these extra car trips and I don’t know all about that, but that’s one of the reasons I ran for this office because things needed to change a little bit, the direction.

We have another partial coming up that I’m not going to touch on too much because I really shouldn’t, but while we’re all having fun, the Holtec property. Okay? And there’s a Legacy Grant out there that I believe the town will be applying for, but I mean, we have to have development somewhere, and we should plan for it, and then we wouldn’t be having these things. I think everybody’s a little excited because they don’t know enough about the project. I sure don’t know a lot about it. It hasn’t really started. Frank’s over there looking at his chaps saying, “Wait till they get in the Planning Board.” I get it, and that’s the process, but more than that is what’s better for Plymouth? We have to make this budget work, future budgets, and that’s all in the big picture in the scheme of things. So, we will listen to you. There are more projects other than the racetrack that we’ve touched on already. I think to the tune of almost $500 million in new development. That’s how you get to almost $7.8 million in tax revenue for this community. Just in Holtec, we’re losing $7 million a year. Just right there. So, what I’m trying to do is explain to everybody in this room to at least listen, be open-minded and still make your case and be respectful. And I have to say, all of you have been very respectful, and I appreciate that and that’s what makes Plymouth, Plymouth. But we’re a big town, we’re going to have proposals. Sometimes you have to push on the development a little bit and it can’t all be developed, heavens know.

[1:55:05]

Dick Quintal:

You talked about your own neighborhoods and walking your dogs, and you know what? It’s all true. I live in North Plymouth. I was born there in North Plymouth. Long as it’s in North Plymouth, it’s fine. Well, North Plymouth is full. West Plymouth’s getting there, and we all share our burden of development, and it has to be equal throughout this community. So, let’s keep the process going. There’ll be plenty of time to discuss this. What people like and don’t like, and we’ll leave it to the ones that are supposed to do it. I mean, we’re Select Member, we don’t give out building permits, thank heavens. So, that being said, we’ll keep everybody posted. Loring, when there’s a meeting, you’ll let us know, we can post it or whatever the next step might be. All right? Okay. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Just so folks know–

[Overlapping conversations due to people exiting from the room]

Betty Cavacco:

I didn’t know we were going to have a mass exodus here, which is fine but as Selectmen, it is our job to make sure that when something comes in front of us, we make sure we do our due diligence and we make sure we support the people to do their due diligence that have come in front of us. Now, I’m not sure of all the exactness of everything, but as the executive branch of this government, I believe that we have to give this organization the tools to be able to do what they need to be able to come back to the public and have the input that our community needs. So, with that, I am going to make a motion and I will read this motion to you. I move that the Board express support for the conceptual project of sports and entertainment complex and service amenities in the Town of Plymouth to be located on approximately 110 acres of land on Camelot Drive and Long Pond Road, also known as the Wood Lot subject to the project proponent obtaining all the necessary licenses, permits and approvals and maintaining compliance with all the applicable statutes, codes, regulations and bylaws. And that is my motion.

[2:00:26]

Dick Quintal:

Do we have a second?

Charlie BletzerL

I’ll second that motion.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Mr. Bletzer. Discussion? Mr. Helm, then Patrick, Mr. Flaherty.

Harry Helm:

Well, those of you left in the audience and those of you watching on PACTV may remember when I ran for the Select Board. My main reason for running was the burden of taxes on our residents that has not been offset by commercial development because we have very little. Some people say 10%, some people say 14%. Everybody agrees that is not healthy and that puts the burden of the costs involved in running the town squarely on the shoulders of the residents. And I’ll echo what the Chairman said, everybody in town needs to realize the importance of commercial development and what happens with that going on to the very existence of the town we love. The town will continue to exist without it, but it may very well not be the town we all know and we all love. And it’s incumbent upon all of us not just the elected members of town meeting, the Board of Selectmen or the various committees including the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. It’s incumbent on all of us to understand that Plymouth has changed in the last little bit over a decade. We are a residential nexus.

We are highly desirable as a residential destination. We have to offset what has happened to our property values and also the building in the far-flung areas of our hundred square miles. We must offset that with commercial development. There’s no doubt about it. There’s no way to escape it. There’s no sandpit for you to stick your head in. That is a reality. Now, to this, I’m not going to support this motion not because I necessarily have made up my mind that this is a bad usage for the Wood Lot or for the Town of Plymouth and its future and what we become. I’m not going to vote for this because I really don’t have the information that I need to say that I’m going to support this going forward. We are being asked for a letter of support. I understand that that’s conditional, but one of the other things that I promised when I was elected that I would give due consideration, that I would think about things, that I would demand information and facts before I made up my mind and also input from the residents before I made up my mind. I’m just hearing about this last week, basically. I do not have the response to the RFP. I have the RFP. I don’t have the response. Okay? I have not read it. I have not heard anything tonight that I consider to be factual detail. It’s in the realm of supposition and what could be and what might be, and that could be well and fine for this part of the process. I just can’t give my vote to a letter of support at this time. Once again, it is not because I think that the Town of Plymouth does not need commercial development. I’ve always been very clear about that, and it is not because I don’t necessarily or won’t necessarily on down the line support the idea that’s being proposed here. It’s just that this is coming on too quickly with too little information for me. Thanks.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Chairman?

Dick Quintal:

Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

Respectfully, Mr. Helm, I believe that we need to move this forward if we want to get more information because this is at the first meeting and if we don’t show support, this may not go anywhere.

[2:05:15]

Charlie Bletzer:

I think we need to vote it forward and let them get more information, come back to us and keep moving this process forward. So, I’m going to be voting for this. Respectfully.

Dick Quintal:

Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you. I have a number of questions, but I just want to first understand what are we voting on exactly? I haven’t seen the motion before and I just heard it for the first time now.

Betty Cavacco:

So, we’re basically voting on a motion of support for them to move forward with all of their investigation whether they have to go to zoning, planning, licenses, the state, federal, wherever they have to go to bring this conceptual project forward and then back to us. That’s what the motion is. The motion is that we support what they need to do to bring it to for fruition, but it doesn’t say that we are agreeing that “Oh, yeah, that’s great. You’re going to have this, you’re going to have that.” There are so many hoops that these folks have to jump through before they can come back, and we can get the input with the community and the several public hearings that we’re going to have. That’s why I made the motion and I think it’s important as a Board to be able to give them the information that they need so they can move forward and give them the support that they need so they can move forward to get the rest of the information that we need that we can discuss with our community and see how this whole thing is going to go. The letter of support isn’t saying, “Yup. We agree with everything you do.” It’s obviously got several stipulations of all the things that they have to go through, but I think it’s on us to give them the tools to do that.

Patrick Flaherty:

Got it. So, it’s a letter of support for their thoroughbred racing and gambling license process.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, no. It’s a letter of support. What did I just do with it? Oh, my goodness.

Dick Quintal:

It’s been a long day.

Betty Cavacco:

It sure has. These three o’clock executive sessions have to stop, I’ll tell you that. Sports and entertainment complex because they don’t know once they do all their testing if there’s going to be thoroughbred racing. They don’t know if the soil is right, if the planets align, if any of that. So, sports and entertainment complex give them the ability to go out and get the information that they need that there may be things. I mean, we heard about horse racing, we heard about a sports complex, we heard about a minor baseball league, we heard about an international soccer team. We heard about a concert venue. So, these are all the things that, you know, like for horse racing, the thoroughbreds and this is just little googling, they have to have a certain type of soil. So, they can’t just go run on dirt. It has to be compacted to a certain degree and all sorts of things. So, the motion that I made is to give them the support to move forward with what they’re going because it’s going to be very difficult for them to move forward and get all the information if they say, “Well did you get support from the town to do all this investigation?” And they say, “No.” It’s kind of dead in the water right from the beginning, in my opinion.

Patrick Flaherty:

Okay. So, I think, respectfully, we might have heard differently Loring’s presentation. I heard that this is the anchor of this project is Thoroughbred Racing and a gambling license. That’s the only thing that’s being brought forward, which is why I made sure to ask that question and then there might be auxiliary businesses that come after that as the anchor.

[2:10:03]

Patrick Flaherty:

So, I see this letter of support not to vote for the auxiliaries, but we’re giving them the support from the Select Board, support from the town to pursue thoroughbred racing and gambling on that site. That’s the proposal, that’s what we’ve heard. And honestly, I have not received one piece of paper on this yet. I spoke with Loring over the weekend when I was wanting to follow up and hear how the Friday meeting went because understandably so, there wasn’t quorums at that meeting. And I asked, “Can I see the follow-up paperwork, their RFP submission?” And understandably, it was still maybe in the process or something like that you couldn’t release it, but we’re being asked to give a support of a project where I have not seen one piece of paper on it. And furthermore, we’ve only heard from the community right now very strong opposition. So, I know this board is very understanding of wanting to get community input and right now, the only community input that I’ve heard is that this is not good, which we know any big project is going to have a lot of initial outcries like that. That’s a given. I think everyone knew going in this would be the case. However, I guess my question is for Derek to put you on the spot, this type of letter of support, is this necessary to the process that they have to go forward now to do their due diligence that the Select Board supports and endorses their thoroughbred racetrack and gambling proposal?

Derek Brindisi:

Through the Chair, that’s a good question. So, we heard the presentation on Friday morning from proponents, and they had indicated that in order for them to advance this discussion especially at the state level that they would need a letter of support from the Select Board.

Dick Quintal:

Come on up. We usually don’t, but this is important.

Patrick Flaherty:

I just want to say one thing that this proposal is not a small subdevelopment. This is not some more residential, respectfully to everything that it could bring to the town. This is something that will change the fabric of our community forever, and we need to learn a lot more about it. I need to get one piece of paper that says something about this, about the proposal, before I’m going to support it. I don’t understand how we could have a complete and thorough and legally sounding motion come forward when members of the board have not even had an opportunity to hear that once, and being asked to support that. I honestly don’t know what to say besides the fact that I can’t support this tonight for those reasons, but a lot more questions than–

Loring Tripp:

And fully agree. I think that Selectman Cavacco has got the kernel of what I think her intent is, is that she is supporting the process to move forward so that way, we can explore this together. This is not a support of thoroughbred horse racing. This is not a support of whatever may be on the site. It’s about supporting a process moving forward that we have at least a sense of initial cooperation with the community just as we have the partnership with the county. And the state delegation, I think was also willing to work through the public process with us. I think that what would be helpful is to have at least a formal acknowledgement that we all agree that there’s a full and vetted process that needs to begin and that the town is willing to support that process moving forward. It is not a support of any of the end users at this point. It’s just a support of the process.

Betty Cavacco:

I thought I said that, but thank you.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Chairman?

Dick Quintal:

Go ahead, Charlie.

Charlie Bletzer:

Just for the record, that’s exactly how I see it too. It’s just to support the process not necessarily horse racing but the process of going to the state and seeing where this goes. And again, we need to explore all economic developments. We can’t just keep conserving land. We really have to look into things like this and see what happens with it. And as they said, this is not going to happen next week or the week after, this could two or three years before they even get permanent to do this, but we have to give them the opportunity to at least explore this and then come back to us with more information. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Any more discussion? Seeing none, of all those in favor? Three in favor, two in opposition. Mr. Flaherty, opposition and Mr. Helm. Motion carries. Thank you.

[2:15:12]

Dick Quintal:

Next, we have a discussion on the acquisition of the DCR Property on the waterfront. Mr. Bletzer, Derek, do you want to speak to it first?

Derek Brindisi:

I’ll defer to Mr. Bletzer.

Dick Quintal:

Charlie. Go ahead, Mr. Bletzer.

Harry Helm:

Charlie, could you speak in because even I can barely hear you? Just pull the microphone right in front.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, I’m new at this still. Anyway, I brought it to it the attention of a new town manager, Derek Brindisi, asked him to look into the purchasing the State Park South, if you’re familiar with the pavilion is on the water. It’s a state park that we owned, and we sold for a dollar to the State in 1939. So, after talking to some tourism people, See Plymouth. We had talked about that. I also talked to and I’m going to read an email from the Director of Project Arts. Project Arts, I’m sure everybody out here is familiar is one of our biggest tourist attractions. It’s a free concert on Wednesday nights down in the waterfront, and we get a lot of tourists, a lot of people from out of town come there. It’s a big event. I’m a big supporter of it. So, I’ll read his letter in a minute but See Plymouth, Lea Filson, the Director told me that they would love to have control of and own the state park in the town, so they could do events there, and they’ve gotten turned down from several events that the state wouldn’t allow them to have. So, as Kenny Tavares knows out there, that’s where the start and finish of the parade. We do our parades there. It’s an important part of our history especially our county history now right across from Cole’s Hill. So, I’d love to get control of it, so we could do events there and we could have control on what goes there. Let me just read–

[People talking on the background]

Charlie Bletzer:

If I could read this. This is Mike Lander, Director of Project Arts. Him and a group of volunteers give all their time. It’s a lot of time that goes into this. They raised over a hundred thousand dollars every year to put this free concert on.

I’ve been advocating for the town to take back the South Park for 27 years. Here are a few reasons to do so: Philosophies, the state has never been an advocate for events in the park. I have been told many times that they would prefer that it be used for nothing more than a walk-in park. The overall attitude of the DCR staff is unfriendly and condescending to users. After 25 seasons with not so much as an argument in our audience, we are forced to pay for security staffing that basically does nothing. We are over regulated. There are a number of events which have been denied access over the years that would have been a great benefit to the citizens as well as our tourism community. The Cookie Cutter approaches the management of the park is the same as say the half shell and esplanade is excessive for Plymouth. The Town of Plymouth is growing in so many ways, and we are tourist driven by our historic properties. This should be no different. I believe that we can double the number of events, which would increase the revenue stream. Our audience and staff after all these years, our concert goers are so in tune with our expectations that they completely pick up after themselves and treat the park with great respect. We produce family events, and we’ll continue to do so.

The cost: DCR has doubled our rental cost in just three years, which makes that job that much harder. We are willing to continue to pay the current amount to bring the town back in. The town could easily pay for staffing and upkeep with the fees that are charged. The acquisition with the amount of town-owned conservation land bordering the space state forests, I believe that we could carve out as section of equal value for the trades. DCR could manage that property, yet it would remain its conservation land, which could be a win-win.

The future, the Pilgrim Memorial South Park area could become the epicenter of large events on the waterfront, which would please our residents as well as help continue to build that tourist trade.

[2:20:35]

Charlie Bletzer:

He apologizes for not being here today, but he didn’t have to be. I told him I’d read this letter. So, I think it’s an important tourism piece of property and I would like to explore. I talked to Mr. Keohan about maybe helping out with some CPC funds, if possible. If he doesn’t spend them all in the stack but hopefully it’s something I really like to get done. So, thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Lydon.

Steve Lydon:

Mr. Steve Lydon and I am Chairman of the Visitor’s Service Board. I have spoken to most of the people who do events on the waterfront: the chamber, Lea Filson, Mike. This seems to be such a problem dealing with DCR. The Waterfront Festival didn’t get their permit till two days before their event. It’s just they’re hard to work with from what I understand. I’m getting this directly from the people I’ve spoken to. It’s not hearsay, and they’re very dissatisfied with the attitude that they get, the service that they get from them. And we pay them for their staff, their security staff, why? The Waterfront Festival supports the police coming down the DPW picking up, the 4th of July does it, so does the Thanksgiving. All these people, they’re all volunteers, they all have to raise money, and yet we’re paying for them? Why do we have to pay them? It’s just another expense that they shouldn’t have, especially they have to go through all the grief to get their permits? It’s just not fair. So, I would love to see the park come back to the town. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bulletin [?] and then Mr. Malaguti.

Mr. Bulletin:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Select Board. What we’ve heard tonight repeatedly is the need for a balance between conservation and commercial. This seems to be the exact thing that we’ve all been talking about, the opportunity to get control, for the town to control a conservation area that can be used to drive something that I’ve been an advocate for, which is bringing more concerts and arts events to this town. The type of commercial venture that benefits everyone, every one of every ilk, people who come here, people who live here, people who are running businesses here. Concerts are the type of event that makes people come to our downtown area and spend money, residents as well as visitors. There is no question that if there’s an opportunity to explore something that meets that balance, that’s exactly what public servants here in town have been asked to do. So, I support this proposal. Thank you very much.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

Everett Malaguti:

Everett Malaguti and I concur with the last two speakers. This is a high priority. I also sit on the Visitor Services Board as well, and I believe this is a much-needed acquisition that needs to be reverted back to town control. Not just for the concerts and the actual ownership that the town has lacked for the waterfront ownership of tens of thousands of people that is dearly lacking even though it’s still access to the public and all that. I believe that having this crucial piece back in town ownership is going to make a much stronger economic engine for the downtown not just for the art scene and public groups but the parades other festivals that have not been allowed to occur because of the restrictions due to DCR regulations. It’s going to allow us to make right what the DCR didn’t allow us to do of the amphitheater by actually building it correctly and not in the wrong position to get better acoustics and performances to occur.

[2:25:08]

Everett Malaguti:

I believe this is going to be a better win for the taxpayer money since we did spend millions of dollars in this area redoing the entire road in front of the rock and the sidewalks and everything else. So, I believe that this is a much-needed acquisition to bring back to town ownership to get the economic engine that’s vitally needed. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Bringing it back to the Board. Derek, do we need a motion to authorize you just to contact with DCR? Or–

Derek Brindisi:

Yes. Mr. Chair, so I had the opportunity to meet with Representative Muratore a couple of weeks back. I brought this issue to his attention and he had counseled me on the fact that in order to begin discussions with the Department of Conservation and Recreation, what the first thing we need it would be a vote of support to enter into discussions with DCR. That’s the first thing DCR will be looking for. And then if conversations continue further at some point, we’ll have to come back to the Board to talk about identifying a source of funds that would be equal to the value of that property.

Betty Cavacco:

I’d like to make a motion to instruct the Town Manager to engage in talks with DCR and that the Board put a letter of support to do that.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? I just have a–is this the whole section or is this from say the right of the protocol?

Derek Brindisi:

I would defer that.

Dick Quintal:

The whole thing.

Charlie Bletzer:

It’s the right of the protocol. I mean, that’s a start. So, let’s work on that first but–

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, all those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

Town Manager’s Report, and there is some good news.

Derek Brindisi:

There is some good news. So, let’s start off with the great news first. A few hours back, I received a phone call from Senator Markey’s Office, who wanted to inform the Select Board and the community at large that the town will be the recipient of a $25,000,000 grant for the reconstruction of Plymouth Long Beach. So, this is a sizable award. We would expect that David Gould will be working directly with the Army Corps of Engineers. This is going to be led by the Army Corps of Engineers. So, congratulations to the board. I know that the board has been pushing this, has been advocating for the last three years with Senator Markey’s Office on this. In fact, we had a meeting scheduled this Friday to submit our fourth advocacy ladder in this. So, congratulations to the past three years of strong advocacy. Pending on any questions, I’ll continue to move on.

I know Lynne Barrett had talked a little about this last week, and we think about our customer service and how we can engage and provide access relative to our beach stickers, transfer station stickers and other online transactions. But I just want to bring to your attention that outside kiosk that was I think installed a while back has already received 1300 transactions, which represents about $290,000 in transactions. So, that kiosk is serving its purpose. And at the same time, as Lynne pointed out last week, working with our IT Director, we are in the midst of installing a help desk. We’ll have two technicians that’ll work on the main floor, and we expect them to be ready by mid-April to assist individuals who come to Town Hall with those online transactions. We know that some folks may not be tech-savvy and many of our modes of doing business are online. So, we think that between the kiosks and the help desk, we’ll be able to provide that access that folks are continuing to be challenged with.

Just some fire updates. The West Plymouth Fire Station is having their underground storage tank removed on April 4th. As you know, West Plymouth Fire Station is already earmarked to undergo a major renovation in the near future. And so, this is one of the first steps in preparing it for renovation is by removing those storage tanks.

The Old North Fire Station, I think you would remember our North Plymouth Fire Station went out to bid. We didn’t have any successful bidders, so we’re working with the team procurement office and the like to put that back out to bid. So, at some point, we’re looking at what the minimum bid amount should be before we go back out to bid.

[2:30:09]

Derek Brindisi:

But just to bring it to your attention, we’re thinking about right now the discussion we’re having internally is to put out the bid for the current assessed value, which I think is approximately $200,000 off the top of my head.

Moving on Jerome Hart, I was informed has been promoted to Deputy Chief. So, he was formerly a Battalion Chief given the fact that Neil Foley is the incoming fire chief, we had to fill what would be his deputy vacancy. So, congratulations to Jerome Hart for that promotion.

And then, I want everyone to be aware that on April 12th, there will be an open house for Chief Bradley at the fire headquarters. So, we’re going to honor Chief Bradley in as many ways as possible for his multiple decades of service to this community. And it’s an open house not just to staff, but it’s an open house for the community to come down and say hi to chief Bradley, bid him farewell and success in the future.

As far as the Police Department goes, the Mountain Bike Patrol will begin April 1st in Downtown Plymouth, but just as important the Chief Flynn has reported that he has now finalized an agreement with the Department of Child and Family Services. This is a program and it’s a pilot program where the DCF will provide a social services coordinator. Actually, a mental health counsel is what I should call them from the hours of 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday. That mental health counsel will drive along with a patrol officer and will respond to 911 calls in this situation whether it was a behavioral health type of issue. So, as you know that behavioral health especially because of COVID has been exasperated, and I would say the vast majority of the calls nowadays are linked to someone’s mental health status. And you talk to folks at the hospital, many of the reason why you have folks waiting in the ED is because of mental health issues. So, congratulations to Chief Flynn to organize such a cooperative agreement with DCF. We’ll continue to report back as that evolves.

Moving on to economic development, the UMass Strategy Report, which is basically a master plan for economic development is nearing its end. Talking to Steve Keohan today, he was proposing that we’ll have a joint meeting with the Economic Development Foundation and the Select Board more towards the end of April, so we can see the findings of this UMass Strategy Report. I know that you as a whole board have talked a lot about economic development even as recent as tonight, so I think this will kind of help set the stage and give us a framework to begin those discussions.

About a month ago, recommendations came from the Harbor Committee. They had some milestones that they were hoping that we could meet effective April 15th. So, just to give you an update, the no-wait sign is already in and floats at the boat ramp and the town wharf have been installed as well. Again, those are all two weeks in advance of the April 15th deadline. So, we’ll keep you posted weather permitting.

And the last item I just wanted to bring up is related to the Massachusetts COVID Emergency Paid Sick Leave Policy. So, just to give you a refresher, this sick leave was passed at the state level effective May of 2021. It provides five days of emergency paid sick leave to any one of our employees due to COVID. And because of that, the state would reimburse the town $850 per employee who went on paid sick leave. Unfortunately, this program ended at the state level effective March 15th. So, from March 15th to June 30th, the town will be paying 100% of those costs. So, I wanted to bring that to your attention because I know that there was a previous vote taken to allow the town to continue to provide such leave for all employees effective June 30th. So, that’s going to continue unless I hear otherwise. But again, it will end effective June 30th if it’s not extended through the board. Pending any questions, that’s all I have this evening.

Dick Quintal:

Derek, if I may excuse me, is the school department doing the same thing, the same date, I mean?

Derek Brindisi:

So, the school district through the School Committee, as you pointed out, committed to this program until June 30th as well.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Derek Brindisi:

Pending any questions, that’s all I have for this evening.

Dick Quintal:

The only other question I had was Mr. Abbott has an article he’s bringing at town meeting with Long Beach, and I believe it’s for a study or whatever. Would you just check with David on this $25 million grant and make sure they’re not going to interfere with each other? David will understand what’s going on, just want to double-check it.

[2:35:18]

Derek Brindisi:

Sure. I’m happy to follow up.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Any other questions from the board on Derek’s report? Okay. Moving right along. Anyone wishing to speak on the public comment? Look at that. Okay.

Male:

It’s a good thing. The Historical Society and the VSP got together, and they decided that the sign down in North Park Avenue and Court Street was needed some repair, and they did it. VSP provided the money but the historical society, they did the design and the DPW installed the sign. I don’t know if you’ve seen the sign, but it is absolutely gorgeous, and they should be commended. They did a great job and something the town should be proud of because it really is beautiful. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Mr. Tavares, and then I think–no? Then you’ll be next. Okay. Well, that’s Mr. Jannetty over here.

Kenneth Tavares:

Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, congratulations certainly on the $25 million grant. I think that shows when there’s a lot of hard work and relationships built and you’re ready, the dollars are available. So, everyone should be congratulated on that because I know it was a long process. It leads me into something else that I’d like to say to you this evening and that is over the next week, I think you have to think long and hard about the motion that you approved of tonight in regards to the track. There are a lot of questions. Certainly, I’m sure answers and information they can be put forth, but that needs to be done. That’s part of what I think you’ve advocated and talked about being transparent. You are in charge of what goes on in this town. You set the course, and there can’t be a developer that comes in and says I’m going to bring this in and not put anything in front of you. Even if it’s the initial talks, go back to even when the movie company was here, they actually buried us in paper and financial reports. I think you need to have that information, and you are in a position to demand it to give support without having any backup is dangerous. And I think that in order to be fair with the process, there’s no doubt about it that we need economic development. We’ve talked more than 12 years about that. This has been going on for years, but I really want you to think about it and make a list and then there are people in this town that can help do that. We have an outstanding group that are doing economic development now. As you know, it’s a semi-public group, they’re doing a fantastic job. The Planning Department is good at it. You all have questions, those need to go to these people and say, “Listen, before we get too into this, give us some basic facts.” I think you will serve yourself, and you’ll serve this community, and you’ll serve the project that’s put before you if you have some information. Please think about that in the next week. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

Andrew Marshall:

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Select Board. For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Andrew Marshall, I am the Business Manager with Laborers Local 721. We represent 23 towns here on the South Shore. My office is in East Bridgewater. I just want to give a little background on what’s going on at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. I feel you as town officials need to hear this and the general public as well. Obviously, the hot topic now is the water and the discharge and the dumping into the bay, that’s getting a lot of the attention and a lot of the coverage. But there’s another issue going on at Pilgrim right now that I just want to give a little background on. I am the Business Manager of Local 721 Laborers Union, and I’m going to talk a little about unions and contracts and jurisdiction, but I don’t want that to be highlighted on what this is all about. There’s a bigger issue going on, but I need to lay the groundwork of actually how we got here to our current situation.

[2:40:05]

Andrew Marshall:

So, back when Holtec acquired Pilgrim from Entergy in 2019, I went to many of the NDCAP meetings and listened to what they had to say and everything, and we established a bit of a relationship, and they actually came to us, LIUNA, Labor’s International Union of North America along with the operating engineers and IBEW Electrical Workers Union, and they drafted up an agreement after the acquisition of the Pilgrim, and they came to us with a decontamination, demolition and–excuse me, it was a decontamination demolition of nuclear power generation facility. So, they came to us with this three-year agreement. It went into effect 2019, and it was to expire this year September 30th, 2022. We’ve been down there doing the work and just to back up a bit, members of this local of this union built that plant in 1968. We’ve performed over 21 refueling outages at the plant. We’ve had hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of people members of this union work down there and there’s never been one catastrophic event. There’s never been anything to speak of. We’ve been down there over two years now. We’ve performed a lot of critical operations as far as the ISFSI pad. We built that pad. We moved all the spent fuel, we encapsulated all that fuel in concrete, placed it safely. We’ve been demoing buildings outside the footprint of the reactor. This is all asbestos, this is lead, this is very critical work.

About a year ago, the original agreement was CDI, Comprehensive Decommissioning International, they were a subsidiary company of Holtec. They changed, that company was being dissolved. CDI was no longer to exist at the plant. They were going to become HDI, Holtec Decommissioning International. Well, we were told this isn’t going to affect the craft, this isn’t going to affect the personnel, this isn’t going to affect supervision, management, anything like that. Work goes on, we continue to do this work.

Beginning of this year, rumors start floating around that there’s a new agreement out there. There’s a five craft agreement. When the original one was three-craft agreement, it was to expire September 30th of 2022. There’s a new five-craft agreement. And I said, “What’s going on? What is this agreement?” “Oh, yeah, there’s a new five-craft agreement. We’re no longer acknowledging the previous agreement with the three crafts because CDI no longer exists and now, we’re Holtec Decommissioning International.” I said, “Well, that that doesn’t make any sense. There’s successorship clauses in the contract,” and things like that. So, they said, “It is what it is.” So, I notified my international in Washington D.C. and they were told that they had roughly maybe a little more two to three weeks to sign this new agreement when we were already under agreement to perform this work.

At this time, I had over 60 men and women working down there at Pilgrim and these are all people with many years’ experiences down at the plant, trained in asbestos, in lead, advanced rigging, all the rad worker training. And mind you, when Energy left or sold to Holtec, there was no longer any training provided by the plant. Holtec has never installed or had any systems where they could train people at the plant. So, I took on that burden. Even though it was in the contract that they were supposed to provide that, I did that because I wanted to provide the best safest workplace for my members. We have a training facility in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. We sent all our members who–it’s not that they weren’t trained to begin with, but sometimes calls expire and things like that they need to be updated. So, we took on that burden just to give them a better product. We’ve bent over backwards. We’ve done everything we can for them. So, basically, they gave us a deadline and said if your international does not sign this contract within the next two weeks, it was roughly two to three weeks, your members will no longer be allowed to work here because you don’t have a contract to work under. And we went back and forth, and that’s exactly what happened.

So, as of February 24th I believe it was, all those men and women, a lot of them I’d say over 75% of them Plymouth residents have been laid off and locked out of Pilgrim and that’s a huge issue and we’ve contacted our legal people and they filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board and this thing is gaining traction.

[2:45:07]

Andrew Marshall:

But the part I’m here to talk about is who is in there doing that work now? Well, our intention was never to keep any of the other craft out of the power plant. We work very closely with the operators, the electricians, the carpenters, the ironworkers, we built this building we’re sitting in here tonight. We built Plymouth North High School, we built Plymouth South High School, we built Duxbury High School, we built Marshfield High School. I could go on and on and on and on how the crafts work together. All those 21 refueling outages for the past 54 years, we worked hand-in-hand with all those other trades. So, this is the outlier where there were only three crafts and mind you, they came to us with this agreement. We weren’t trying to block anyone or keep anyone out of there, and now we’re being locked out of there. Well, where are they finding the people to go in there? Well, the Carpenters Union has now created a– it’s actually comical, a decommissioning specialist title with a new wage and benefit scale. They’re not traditional carpenters who have the experience and the training that have always been at the plant. Mind you, they weren’t on the original agreement, said, “We’re going to create a new wage and benefit scale, call them decommissioning specialists and try to find people to come in and fill these roles.” Well, that’s exactly what they’re doing they’ve tried soliciting my members who were at the plant, and they’re not going to go become a carpenter decommissioning specialist. They’re loyal to their union. They feel they were wrongly treated, and they should be back in there as a laborer. Well, they’re going out and they’re finding people off the street with no experience. It’s called new to nuke in the industry. I was a laborer for 15 years, I worked five refueling outages at Pilgrim. I’ve been the business manager for this local for eight years now. I represent over 450 members and close to 200 of those members are from Plymouth. That’s 200 families in this community that I represent and there was over 60 of those people locked out right now. And those people that are coming in under the guise of decommissioning specialists, they have the gal to call it that, these people have no training, no experience, never stepped foot in a nuclear power plant, they can’t even get through the gate to get access in the plant. I think their track record is about 50% right now getting people even through the drug screen and the federal background investigation. The ones that do get in, I’ve been hearing horror stories, people have been reaching out to me from inside the plant who are still there whether it’s Holtec supervision, security, maintenance people that have been there. They said, “Andrew, this is ridiculous. We feel like we’re being set up for failure. We feel like this is an accident waiting to happen for the employees and the people who work there and potentially the general public.” These people have no experience and this isn’t something you can teach overnight or on a Zoom class or anything like that. This is 54 years of experience and know-how and the policies and procedures of how that plant works, the ins and outs. And like I said, that’s something that can’t be taught overnight.

I reached out to the NRC personally and informed them of this. A lot of the members have reached out to the NRC and informed them of this, and we’ve reached out to the Attorney General, the Governor, Senator Markey, Elizabeth Warren, Keating, they all know about it. We had a demonstration out their last two weeks ago when there was a big meeting with some of the state politicians and the NRC and some of them wouldn’t go in because they said they’re not going to cross a picket line. Well, it wasn’t a picket line. It was an informational protest. We were trying to just get the word out there. I have over three-page letter that I sent to the NDCAP. I sent them that letter. I spoke last night right down the hall at that meeting along with my colleague, Scott Gustafson, and we’re just trying to gain traction and inform the town, inform the public of what’s going on, and this thing will be worked out one way or another. I’ll put my members to work whether it’s at Pilgrim or not, but I think you as town officials need to know what’s going on and who these people are in there being asked to do this work. I mean, the water is a big deal, the discharge but this is actually happening right now. This has been happening for the past month. I know for a fact that even today seven of these new workers were contaminated, and they lost their clothes. They couldn’t even leave the plant until this week. And this is not common. You say, “Oh, it’s a nuclear plant. It’s dirty.” No, that usually doesn’t happen down there.

[2:50:01]

Andrew Marshall:

Just the other day one of the new decommissioning specialists literally sleeping on the floor in the lobby of one of the buildings and someone went over to give him medical attention, see if he was okay. He woke up and said he had a rough night. They gave him a breathalyzer fitness for duty, and he failed it. These people are not local. They’re grabbing them from wherever they can, they’re bringing them in, and it’s like a band-aid until they figure out what’s going on with this. And I’m not asking you to figure out our contract issues or the legalities of that, but there’s definitely a safety concern that needs to be addressed at the highest level, I believe.

Dick Quintal:

Come on up, Scott.

Scott Gustafson:

Thank you, Chairman Quintal, Vice Chairman Cavacco and the board. You just heard Andrew Marshall talk about what’s going on down at Pilgrim Station. My name’s Scott Gustafson. I think most of you know me, you know how passionate I am about these issues and how much of my life I’ve put in to making sure that not just Plymouth families, but the workers of our Local Unions are treated respectfully. I’ve never seen a situation like this in my entire life. Now, I talked to Selectman Bletzer last week. I prized him of the situation. He spoke to Patrick O’Brien. Patrick O’Brien told him that it was the laborers who refused to sign an agreement. Let me just give you a little background on that as Andrew did.

52 years history of working down there, we fought for those jobs and I know Vice Chairman Cavacco knows that. Our laborers worked hard down there to make sure that that was a very good, safe running power plant. We took a lot of pride in that plant, we always did, and we did it right up until we were locked out a few weeks ago. If you look at Holtec’s press release, they actually praised the craftsmen who moved the fuel out of that plant in record time, and then they locked us out over a negotiation that they said went bad. It’s over hurt feelings. So, as Andrew said, we’re not looking for you to negotiate our agreement. We know how to do that. We’ve done that for a long time. But a lot of times when you’re running for election, you call me, you ask if I can support you and I do because I love this process. I love the town. I love the politics of this town. I love being involved. And I don’t do it because I need to ask you for something back, but there are 60 of our members who live in this town, most of them who live in this town that are locked out of their jobs down at Pilgrim, that care about this town the way you do and care about that plant the way you do and what happens down there, so I am asking you tonight as the Select Board of this town who does have the ear of Holtec to some degree, I’m sure you had negotiations today in your executive session at three o’clock, to get a meeting with Holtec and let them know that this is absolutely or just can’t happen. We never not wanted to sign that agreement. We told them last night at the Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Board, put the agreement on the table, we’ll sign it right now. They locked us out. It’s a lockout. You can’t get involved in a labor dispute, but you can get involved in a lockout, and we need your help now because the families that we represent that are your constituents need your help.

I heard a lot tonight about the fabric of this town whether it’d be the stack at Cordage Park or over at Long Pond Road with this racetrack or the DCR land, and you know what? It’s right. The fabric of this town is important. We had a great history. We are part of the fabric of this town. The members of our local union are members of this community as well. We need your help. We need you to speak up and talk to Holtec and don’t believe them when they say the laborers refused to sign the agreement because that’s just unreasonable. That’s an unreasonable and materially false statement. It doesn’t make sense. I’ve been down there 50 something years, took pride in it. We fought for those jobs, we always would. We always did a good job, they said it themselves. They threw us out. Now we need your help. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you both Andrew and Scott for coming in front of us and for allowing people to hear what exactly is going on down there.

[2:55:01]

Betty Cavacco:

Now, you’re right, I’ve worked with both of you for over 30 years and members of Local 721, and they’re some of the most qualified folks that–excuse me, that I have had the pleasure of working with in the nuclear industry. So, what you’re saying is nothing that I haven’t heard. I also spoke to Patrick myself. I talked to Tommy White, and he let me know what was going on. And you’re right, that’s what they’re saying that a contract wasn’t signed, but I have to tell this board because none of them here have worked at a nuclear power plant and especially Pilgrim Station, that type of caliper of employee is unacceptable. You don’t have seven people contaminated in a day. You don’t have someone walking through all sorts of security checkpoints and failing a breathalyzer. It just doesn’t happen, and it is unacceptable, and it is unsafe. And I think if there is anything this board can do, they need to take action, support these guys that are down there that have worked forever down there as long as I can remember, and we need to do something because we don’t want any kind of safety issue that’s happening down there.

Yes, they’re decommissioning, but you know what, there are still a lot of things in there that could go wrong, and I don’t think any one of us want to be part of that. And I certainly don’t want to be sitting in the board where some kind of emergency like that happened and there was something we could do about it. So, I would hope that we could do something. I mean, if the board doesn’t want to do it as a Board, I’d be happy to do something myself. I’m not sure what. And I don’t think I ever called you Scott, but I do appreciate your support. I really do think we need to do something. We need to protect our community. I mean, like Mr. Tavares said, we make the decisions and I have something to say about all that anyway in a little bit. But I think it’s important that we take a stand because we want people down there that know what they’re doing. These guys train just like we did. We’re in training every six weeks. We had rigging. I was a rigging Inspector. I know exactly what they’re talking about. So, we can’t have non-qualified people down there. I was told a couple of days ago that they tried to bring in 14 carpenters and only two passed the drug test. We can’t have that kind of stuff. Not here in our town, not in a nuclear facility, and we need to help these guys get our residents and our people that are qualified and trained back to work, so.

Dick Quintal:

So, excuse me, our options are to–I mean, what do you–anything you recommend? I mean, this is the first for me.

Betty Cavacco:

I think we should first maybe write a letter of support demanding action, and I don’t know. What do you think Derek? I mean, if it were a union and we’re Local 369 which I was a part of, they’d be easy. So, I know you probably don’t want to picket. So, we’ll skip that.

Dick Quintal:

Pick what?

Betty Cavacco:

Picket.

Dick Quintal:

Oh, I see the truck down there in the news.

Betty Cavacco:

Right. So, I mean, is there something that we could do, Derek? I mean, in my opinion, it is a public safety hazard. So, granted there are a lot of things that go on there that nobody hears about, but Selectman Bletzer’s hearing it, I’m hearing it. We have the president and the business agent here, and they’re explaining it to us. It just they need to do something about this.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, where’s OSHA? I mean, if you have people in a nuclear power plant that can’t pass a drug test, I mean, I should think that’s a violation as far as that goes let alone the 60,000 plus people that live in this community. We have a responsibility to them. I think we should direct the Town Manager to create a letter of either support or support-demand that some of these things be answered to the town.

Betty Cavacco:

Be addressed.

[3:00:01]

Dick Quintal:

We gave council a little checklist earlier to give the Town Manager authority to put a few more checks on there, but these are urgent ones and this was just brought to our attention and I think they have to answer us if there’s safety issues down there. I don’t know what all the steps are, but we’re going to give it a good look.

Betty Cavacco:

And if it was a complaint of not signing a contract because I understand there is succession language in all of our contracts down there. Although that’s the legality of it and that they have loads of money, so they’re just going to fight and fight and fight and that’s–

Scott Gustafson:

The issue is for us and that what we’re asking of you, yeah, there is a safety concern and David Noyes said last night at the meeting though that’s there’s not a don’t scream fire in a crowded theater. There is a safety issue, but there’s a lockout. And again, we certainly don’t need–we have attorneys that negotiate our collective bargaining agreements and that is being addressed at the National Labor Relations Board right now about what happened, but this is an illegal lockout, and it’s an illegal lockout of citizens of this community that you represent. So, I think that’s what’s important. But yeah, there are safety issues, but there’s also community issues. And I think, again, being the Board, you have the ear of Holtec. I know they’re not the easiest people to deal with, but I think you have some leverage in this. In cases like this, we’re not–again, we’re not asking you to get involved in a labor dispute. That’s not what this is. We’re asking you to support the families in this town who have been locked out of the plant, who are skilled and have been at that plant for years and years running it safely. And as I said last night, so we could all sleep at night so as Vice Chairman Cavacco said, there are still a lot of components in that plant. If something went wrong, there’s enough radiation in those pipes and there’s enough contamination in those pipes that could affect a lot of things. We don’t need that. We need a skilled workforce. We need a safety commissioning. Just got a text on my phone as we were talking said one of the new workers tried to divert their drug test today. We have people down there that are still notifying us of what’s going on in the safety issues because they’re concerned. They’re concerned because they’re down there and they’re worried about what’s happening. So, it’s a safety issue, but it’s also a community issue. And again, we’re asking for your support on this because I think that Holtec may listen to you. They’re not answering our calls right now. They’ve drawn a hard line in the sand. It’s the dumbest or at least the weirdest thing that I’ve ever experienced in my 20 years as an organizer of the union. So, never seen anything like it. We’re here tonight just to ask for your help, and we’re not going to stop. We’re going to bring this to the highest levels, but it’s very important that you knew what was going on. So, again, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Chairman, could we ask the town manager to set up a meeting and whether it’s myself and you or have them come in front of the Board. I mean. I don’t want to wait another week, but our next meeting isn’t until Tuesday. I mean, is that something that we could do, Derek?

Derek Brindisi:

Through the Chair, you want a meeting with Holtec? We certainly could call one. Absolutely.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Derek Brindisi:

I mean, that may be more beneficial than just sending a letter, okay.

Betty Cavacco:

Or maybe do both, if they don’t respond.

Andrew Marshall:

And then just to clarify one more thing and like I said, I’m not trying to bog this down with contract language and things like that, but the original agreement was signed with CDI, Comprehensive Decommissioning International. They were being dissolved. It was corporate strategy. Nothing was going to change. HDI was the new contractor. Well, CDI, HDI which is Holtec Decommissioning International and Holtec are the same exact company, that’s the bottom line here. The address is one 1 Holtec Boulevard in Camden, New Jersey for all three of these companies. So, that’s why people say, “Well, why didn’t you sign the agreement? Why didn’t you sign the agreement?” Because we had an agreement. There’s a successor ship language in there that if there was to be a new agreement, it had to be agreed upon by the three internationals of the other unions and if they wanted to add other craft, that’s fine, but it’s at the end of the contract or approach us or our international and say, “Hey, listen, this is the plan. We think there’s a skill set over here that these guys could help out with.” And we probably would have signed the contract, but they’re bad actors. They’re not being transparent. They’ve never been transparent with the town and they kind of tell you what they want to hear to get what they want, and then they move on, and you’re in the dust.

[3:05:05]

Andrew Marshall:

I’ve reached out to John Moylan. He’s been down there for a long time before it was even Holtec. He’s the Site Vice President. I said, “John, we have control, you and I, to fix this.” I said, “I will sign an agreement whether it’s a project labor agreement to fix this for the local men and women of this community,” because there are other plants involved. There’s Indian Point in New York, there’s Oyster Creek in New Jersey, there’s Palisades in Michigan and there are other things going on at those plants, but we have control to fix this here. I can sign a PLA or a Project Labor Agreement to get those men and women back in there tomorrow. It isolates this work for Pilgrim only, and it doesn’t have all the baggage that goes along with all these national agreements and things like that. So, they’re going to tell you one thing, but it’s absolutely not the case. If you want me to speak at that meeting, I’m happy to come and answer any questions whatever you guys want. And I’d like to forward you the email that I wrote to the NDCAP just so you guys have a little more background on it. And if I could get your emails, I’ll send that off to you guys so you have some paperwork on it. Thank you very much.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Anyone else wishing to speak on the public comment? Okay. We’re going to move on to licenses and administrative notes. One day Wine and Walt Licenses for Mayflower Brewing Company from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. for a Beer Garden on Sundays; 5/29/22, 6/5/22, 6/12/22, 6/19/22, 6/26/22, 7/3/22, 7/10/22, 7/17/22, 7/24/22, 7/31/22, 8/7/22, 8/14/22, 8/21/22, 10/10/22, 5/30/22 and 9/5/22.

Betty Cavacco:

I think you forgot a line.

Dick Quintal:

Oh, yeah, I did. I’m sorry 9/4/22, 9/11/22, 9/18/22, 9/25/22, 10/2, 10/9, that should be all of them.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

MAR Promotions, Temperamental Way, Michelle Polvere is requesting a One Day Wine and Malt License for 4/2/22 from 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. for a Cage Titans 52 Event at Memorial Hall.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Amplified Music Permits new, Mayflower Brewing Company from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. for a Beer Garden at the Pine Hills on the following day Sundays; 5/29, 6/5, 6/12, 6/19, 6/26, 7/3, 7/10, 7/17, 7/24, 7/31, 8/7, 8/14, 8/21, 8/28, 9/4, 9/11, 9/18, 9/25, 10/2, 10/9, 5:30 9/5, 10/10 all of 2022.

Charlie Bletzer:

Motion.

Patrick Flaherty:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion. All those in favor? Unanimous.

Seasonal Liquor Renewals, Pinewood Lodge d/b/a Pinewood Lodge, Albert Saunders, manager, request for the following license in conjunction with their liquor renewal; Common Victualler, Comprehensive Entertainment licenses (Group I, II, III and IV)

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Patrick Flaherty:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Sandy Pond Gold Inc. d/b/a Atlantic Country Club is requesting a Common Victualler License, Comprehensive Entertainment (Group I), Early Sunday Opening.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Double C Inc d/b/a Campy’s requests renewal of the following license in conjunction with their Liquor Renewal:

• Comprehensive Entertainment (Group I, II, III)
• Sunday entertainment (TV, dancing/ Live entertainment)
• and early Sunday opening.

[3:10:10]

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Patrick Flaherty:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Kevin J Aragon d/b/a as Kevin’s Club House, his request for the Common Victualler License.

Patrick Flaherty:

So moved.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Pillory Pub LLC request renewal for the following license in conjunction with the Liquor Renewal:

• Common Victualler
• Comprehensive Entertainment (Groups I and III)

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Stack Shack d/b/a Stack Shack:

• Early Sunday Sales (10:00 a.m.)
• Comprehensive Entertainment (Groups I, III)
• Radio Live Entertainment
• Outdoor amplified music for a periodic entertainment, no later than 10:00, is that PM? I’m assuming. Okay, just checking.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Seasonal renewal certificates for the ABC. ABC requests a list of licenses disapproved and not submitted for 2021 Seasonal Renewal. At this time, there are no licenses that fall in this category.

We have administrative notes.

Betty Cavacco:

I’d like to move them as a group, unless anyone has a question.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second that.

Dick Quintal:

Second, discussion? All in favor? Unanimous.

Committee Liaison Reports? Designee Updates? Old business?

Betty Cavacco:

I’ll do old business.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Sorry, old business. So, some of the things that have been brought up in the past are about bathrooms open up hopefully longer than just a few months. I know the Town Hall bathroom and the Maritime Center. If you could get an estimate of what that would cost us to open those year-round so we can make a decision whether we should hire someone or contract it, or do whatever it is we can. But I think the need for them is much stronger than it has been. A lot more people are outside, but that has been a topic of conversation as of late.

Also, old business is the White Horse Beach bathroom trailer. I do believe Mr. Beder has a proposal if you could just get that as well.

And I got some new business but go ahead.

Dick Quintal:

Anyone else have old business? Letters? New business?

Betty Cavacco:

I’ll do some new business. One of the things that Chairman Quintal and myself have attended some caucuses and this seems to be the age of an immense amount of misinformation. I think it worked out really well when we attended these caucuses because as Selectmen, we were able to correct some of this misinformation, but I also feel as a Board that we should probably create some type of policy that there are five of us, there are 18 precincts and that we should all share in the glory of Town Meeting caucuses and have a Select Board representative at each one of them. I think it’s important. Like I said, the information that we had, and we were able to correct was really important, and I think we should be able to do that and attend these caucuses. So, I don’t know if it’s a policy or if it’s a suggestion or if you just want to try to figure it out and have it as a discussion amongst the board and put it on the agenda. However, you want to do it. I just think it’s important.

[3:15:10]

Dick Quintal:

Comments from the board?

Charlie Bletzer:

That’s a good suggestion.

Dick Quintal:

It’s a good suggestion. Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

It’s a good suggestion, but I do think that it should require some discussion of the board exactly what the parameters of our participation is. Having been on the Finance Committee, members of the Finance Committee go to represent the Finance Committee because they vote on these just like we do. The concept with members of Finance Committee that they are there to respond when asked. They are not there to present, they are not there to correct. They are there to advise when asked. And it’s another specific is that you are there to represent the Finance Committee not your own personal opinions on a warrant article. Unless asked, for instance times when Harry, why did you vote no? And then I would ask. I do think that I like the idea. I think we need to discuss what our parameters of participation would be.

Betty Cavacco:

That’s fine. We can make it an agenda.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, make an agenda item that way, I’d be more comfortable with that, but I like the idea.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Any more comments?

Betty Cavacco:

I have one more thing.

Dick Quintal:

That’s it. Go ahead.

Betty Cavacco:

I know I was missed when I wasn’t here with all this new business kind of stuff. So, I kind of wanted after chairman, her previous Chairman Tavares got up and spoke, I’m a little perplexed because first of all, this is the venue to have the discussion of all these new things coming around. The process that we approved was just that. It was the process. It wasn’t about a horse track. It wasn’t about any kind of other end result in what we discussed. It was the process and I want people to be clear that that’s what that motion was intended. Now, granted yes, we need a lot more information, and it is years away, but I want to be clear that people understand that we were supporting the process to gather this information and not supporting what an end use would be for the property. So, that’s all for me.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Chairman?

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’d like to echo what Betty said. Same thing, I didn’t vote for a racetrack tonight. That wasn’t what my vote was. My vote was for them to get an approval from us to go forward and talk to the state to get more information and then come back to us, bring us more information. So, that’s what that was about tonight. It was informational, but they need approval to move. That’s how I saw it. That’s how I interpreted what happened tonight. So, for Mr. Tavares to come up here and say what he said tonight, I thought was out of line because none of us have that much information, but we’re not going to get any more information unless we let them go further in the process. And I’m going to tell you right now, for the last 10 years, I don’t know how much economic develop happened under his watch. So, we need to explore any opportunities for economic development. Obviously, we get boards. We get Zoning Boards that have to do their work. We get the Planning Board that has to do their work. If it gets approved, they have to get through the boards. So, that’s all. That’s all I’ll say in that. So, thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Flaherty and then Mr. Helm.

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you. I would like to make a motion that the Select Board placed a non-binding question on the May ballot asking: do you support a development project that includes thoroughbred racing and gambling in Plymouth?

Charlie Bletzer:

Second, for discussion.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer.

[3:20:00]

Charlie Bletzer:

I don’t think we have enough information to put it on as a non-binding question on the ballot, because we don’t know what they’re going to come back to us with. So, we don’t have enough information yet to put it on, so I’d vote against that.

Patrick Flaherty:

We know their proposal is for a thoroughbred racetrack that includes gambling. They asked for a letter of support to go forward with the process to get the state licensing for gambling in a thoroughbred racetrack. That’s what their proposal is. That’s what the letter of support was endorsing to go through that process. So, I believe if one hour is enough time for this board to decide that they want to support that, that’s all the time I had to decide, I think six weeks is enough time for our residents to make a decision if they support this concept. Doesn’t exclude any other or even mention any other topics of development there, just that one. So, respectfully, I think six weeks is enough time for our residents, if one hour is enough time for this board.

Betty Cavacco:

I have to agree with Charlie. Though I have no problem with non-binding questions, as we all know and I’d be more than happy to support it when we have the information because you keep saying it’s going to be a racetrack. We don’t know it’s going to be a racetrack. We don’t know that. They have to go through– first of all, they don’t know if they’re going to get anything from the state, if they’re going to get licensed or go to the Gaming Commission or whatever it is that they have to do. So, it may not be a racetrack. Maybe it’s just going to be a sports venue, maybe it’s just going to be a concert venue. So, I don’t think there’s enough information to put a non-binding question on the ballot. I don’t think we have enough time to put a non-binding question on the ballot. I think there are time constraints. I’m not sure what they are, but like I said, I think there’s–I mean, my whole thing was the process. I want information. I want to be able to give our residents every single bit of information. I want them to be able to say to us, “We didn’t get approval from the state. The soil isn’t good enough for horses. We don’t have the climate. We don’t have this. There are too many environmental issues.” I want the details before we move forward but getting the support from us for them to get those details was what that was about. So, maybe I misunderstood it wrong.

Patrick Flaherty:

I can answer the timing though. It’s 35 days to put a non-binding question on, so that would be somewhere around April 15th or 16th. We’d have to put it on and, so there’s plenty of time to accomplish that.

Dick Quintal:

Harry?

Harry Helm:                                  

Well, a few things, and before I forget, I would be remiss in just reminding all members of the board when a resident comes in front of us in public comment, they are never out of line. They’re a resident of the Town of Plymouth and they have a right to express their opinion on whatever is going on in the Town and what we do as a board. So, just in case I forgot to say that.

It’s very difficult just as it was really difficult to support the motion to move ahead with a letter of support at 9:25 at night on a Tuesday night after a very long day and really consider what could be a very valid suggestion or motion by Mr. Flaherty. And my own druthers would be to discuss this at next Tuesday’s meeting as an agenda item. It would give the time for the people from Keeneland to actually give us a good presentation, which by the way they did not tonight. Okay? That was not really a presentation in my book. I’ve run a lot of major presentations in publishing in New York and at the very initial stages, they had a lot more substance than what we got tonight. So, it would give them time to do it. Tough for me to vote yes on that tonight, although I think that it’s an idea worth considering simply because once again, voting yes on it tonight without really considering the ramifications and the information would be pretty tough for me to do.

[3:25:27]

Dick Quintal:

All right. So, that being said, all those in favor? Mr. Flaherty in favor, 4 in opposition. And Harry, I was hearing what you said about another presentation, and I’m saying this only let me reach out to them and see when they can come back because I do know for example Vince is the name you heard and I don’t have his last name. I remember it. He’s in Mexico I believe at the time so that’s why he wasn’t here tonight and that’s why we had him Friday, and it was important to meet with what we did and that’s why we did what we did, but I’m sure they’re more than happy to come back, and I will check with them and let you just know if that’s okay. All right? Okay. Motion to adjourn?

Charlie Bletzer:

Motion to adjourn.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Dick Quintal:

Accepted. Thank you for watching. Have a well good evening, what’s left of it, a nice week and keep in your thoughts and your prayers the people of Ukraine. Thank you.