Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 5-24-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board 5-24-22 Minutes

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

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.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco, if you please read the Governor’s Order.

Betty Cavacco:

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 into PACTV government cable access channels Comcast 15 or Verizon 47 and watch the meeting as it is aired live, or watch the meeting live on the PACTV website PACTV.org. Members of the public who wish to participate in the meeting may do so in a following manner:

In-person attendance: Plymouth Town Hall, 26 Court Street in the Great Hall.

Remote participation: go to the town website under the Select Board page and click on the Zoom Webinar registration box.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Call the meeting to order. I’d like to welcome and congratulate John Mahoney to the Board. Welcome, John and welcome back, Charlie. Congratulations to both of you, and we’re going to have the ceremony swearing in when you’re ready.

Anna Messner:

Charles H. Bletzer, you have been elected to the Select Board for a three-year term ending May 17th, 2025. Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform your duties as a member of the Select Board in accordance with the bylaws and charter of the Town of Plymouth and the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

Charlie Bletzer:

I will.

Anna Messner:

Thank you, sir.

Charlie Bletzer:

Thank you.

Anna Messner:

Congratulations.

Charlie Bletzer:

Thank you. I just want to say a couple of words. I want to thank my family. My wife Lisa is here, my daughter Isabella and I want to thank them for their support and my other two daughters Jackie and Alex, through this campaign. I had a lot of good supporters and a lot of my committee was a great committee that worked hard for me and that’s how I got elected. I’d also like to welcome John Mahoney back to the Board and I just want to say congratulations, John and yeah, I know a couple of days ago, we were opponents in a race, but now we’re going to be colleagues. And I’m looking forward to working with you and the rest of the board in doing positive things for the Town of Plymouth. So, I thank you. And the last thing I want to do is I had to mention Ed Bradley and Alan Costello, they ran a positive campaign and I want to thank them for that for their class. Thank you.

John Mahoney:

Betty, right? Go big or go home?

Betty Cavacco:

Go big or go home, John.

Anna Messner:

John T. Mahoney Jr., you have been elected to the Select Board for a term three-year term ending May 17, 2025. Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform your duties as a member of the Select Board in accordance with the bylaws and charter of the Town of Plymouth, and the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

John Mahoney:

I do.

Anna Messner:

Thank you. Congratulations.

John Mahoney:

Thank you. Anna, thank you. She was down the street from me, we’re neighbors. So, I just wanted to say a few words. It’s borderline surreal to be back. Obviously, I’ve worked in the past before with Mr. Quintal and Miss Cavacco and I look forward to dialing into some issues and teaming up to get some of these challenges behind us that the community faces.

[0:05:12]

John Mahoney:

Charlie, you were helicoptered in last August. I can’t imagine. You dropped in the middle of nowhere 9 months ago, and a lot of things are going on around you and certain issues and I can’t imagine how difficult it was to go through what you did. With respect to the past campaign, I just want to thank Patrick Flaherty for three years of service on the Board and it’s an honor for me to succeed him in this position. And then again just picking up on Charlie’s comments before, Ed Bradley and Alan Costello are in a wonderful campaign, really was a wonderful campaign. It was one of those elections where you could see in the last few years where maybe you only got like 4500 to 6,000 people voted, but there was a significant turnout. There was an uptick in turnout and that was a positive thing to see, but it’s an honor for me to be back. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Before we go into the reorganization, I just want to let the people know, the Board Members know that I will not be accepting any nomination for chairman. It’s been a wonderful year for me. It’s been–I think you used the word challenging, very challenging. Regardless of opinion you may have, I think it’s been a fantastic year. We’ve accomplished a lot. We’ve accomplished a lot right here in the building with the employees and management from the top floor down to the basement. I’ve served as a Board Member in different sides of the aisles here, and I’ve never seen it as quiet, and I probably shouldn’t say this, but it’s really quiet. And when it’s really quiet, it means people are happy and so on and so forth. However, there are some controversial issues: the Woodlot, the Racino as everybody’s calling it now, but I’ve got to have that discussion when it hits the table because it’s not on the table. So, I’m a little baffled by that. It has not been presented to the community. At this point, it’s been brought up chalk, but there’s been no actual paperwork or application of any kind, which is why I personally did not want to put it on the ballot until November when we had some information that we could share with the people in the community the proper way from Town Hall. That being said, it’s been an honor. It’s an honor to serve any position on this Board, in this town that I love, and I think everybody loves it. You have to if you sit at this table. And it’s a great honor and I do love the Town. So, that being said, do we have any nominations? And thank you very much.

Charlie Bletzer:

I have a nomination. I nominate Betty Cavacco for chairman.

Dick Quintal:

Do we have a second? I’ll second it. Discussion? All those in favor? Three in favor, two in opposition. Congratulations.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

There you go. Do we have a nomination for Vice-Chairman? John? Mr. Mahoney? Excuse me.

John Mahoney:

I nominate Mr. Richard Quintal.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second it.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. So, Mrs. Cavacco, are you ready? Let it rip. We’ll switch chairs next week.

Betty Cavacco:

You know what, you can stay there if you’d like.

Dick Quintal:

Oh, no, that’s okay.

Betty Cavacco:

I appreciate the support and just to make a brief statement is that we’ve been able to serve–we’ve all served together, served with Charlie, welcoming him back, served with John for three years, we never had an issue before. I’m sure there won’t be any issues now, but it’s now time to get down to business. We have a lot of work to do for this community so, and I’m hoping that we can do this all together.

So, Special Town Meeting Article, Article 5. Derek?

[0:10:22]

Derek Brindisi:

I don’t have anything new to report. As you know, this is a Citizens Petition, and I don’t see the petitioner here this evening. Is he here? Okay. He’s going to get dialed in right now. Yeah, I guess, I should lean into this. Yeah. So, this is a Citizens Petition. Chris is going to bring in the petitioner, Randy Parker, as we speak.

Betty Cavacco:

Hi, Randy.

Randy Parker:

I’m trying to figure out how to make you people look bigger. I don’t know. Oh, I saw a full screen. That’s what I’m looking for.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Randy Parker:

Oh, I look so much better, I’m happy now. All right. So, folks, you had asked to postpone this for a week. I presume it was to get an opinion from Town Council or otherwise look into any legal or technical issues that might reside within the language of the Article 5 petition that simply says a permit an application shall not be required for residential lots or structures existing prior to March 27, 1973. And if I have a couple of minutes just to update and remind the Board that this is essentially a grandfathering provision, much as we have with zoning, much as we have with health and septic systems and local upgrade approval and relief. When we go to do something on a lot that has a structure, it has equity, it has value, it has everything it needs. But to be fair, we really have no business applying successive or successor regulations to a lot created back in 1973. And if the Chair could tolerate three paragraphs for me, Ms. Cavacco? Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure.

Randy Parker:

Thank you. I’m going to read for a little bit, so bear with me.

So, first off, this puts the protected non-conformity Wetland status that we’re looking for back in 1973 and concurrent with zoning, and I guess we can start out with local zoning regulations keep expanding. These little cottage lots along our 30 miles of coastline, 360 ponds and numerous streams have become overwhelmed by buffers to any wallet. First a 25 foot no build buffer, then a few years later, a 35-foot no touch buffer, and a 50-foot no build buffer, and now just adopted I think, and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I recollect incorrectly April the 25th and I thought we had till June before they were effective, but that’s going to require some more digging. And now, what they’ve come out with on this last adoption is a 50 to 100-foot no build, if no practicable alternative language with 96.5 square miles of land surface and 37.5 square miles of water. We contain 39% inland waters built upon early on.

[0:15:00]

Randy Parker:

Many of these lots are smaller than the buffers required. Their entirety subject to any and all wetland regulation to the point that owners of old lots can do very little without Conservation approval. There are minor activities like fencing, but not even a post and rail fence down a lot line between properties can be installed in the present 35-foot no touch buffer. The issue has been taken by the Commission over the years where wetland interests are storm damage prevention and sediment supply. That’s for a coastal bank, that’s for a block like I live on. That’s where the wetland interest of storm damage prevention and sediments supply applied. So, we’ve had cases where there have been flagstones moves or proposed, grills of a stationary manner, brick patios that we could not pick up and rearrange and the like, which simply cannot be subject to such autocratic de minimis control every triviality as none has any influence over those two controlling interests that I mentioned. Simply put, disproportionate control is inequitably exerted over old lots than new.

Just as is the case with zoning. What would any of you do on a protected non-conforming lot to have the town come along and say, “Hey, gee, that’s a big road. We want you to be 100 feet back from now on.” You can’t do that, you can’t build anything. So, whether it’s wetlands, health, zoning, the cost of the of regulation de minimis is out of control, trying to deal with these trivialities, the hidden lost money, the contention and continuations, higher interest paid unnecessarily, obstructive litigation cost. And what I mean by that, Select Board is it doesn’t matter how trivial an issue we’re dealing with, with the Conservation Commission, it could be somebody that wants to put a house on helical piles, a structural engineer said, “No, no, no. I’m not putting the house up seven-foot on pipes,” but you have no choice. You got to go along, because the option is to sue the Commission for tens of thousands of dollars and wait in years to do what it is you want to do. If for no other reason that has got to stop. To think that these people have us by the short hairs to the extent that they can argue over a debt, they can argue over tread, you can’t do this here, you can’t do that there. And I heard somebody say that I’m frustrated. That’s an understatement. I don’t anger easily. It’s been like 10 years dealing with this, but I’m getting there. I am tired of this inequity of the town being in a position so superior to that of the general public that it just really rubs me the wrong way. So, we’ve got the obstructive litigation cost, rent and value lost waiting for something, inflation, higher stock cost, engineering bills that just go on and on through revision after revision. Negotiations to avoid the jurist favored town. An avoidance of tens of thousands of dollars and years lost for nothing much. Our Conservation Commission has us at a distinct disadvantage for no wetland rationale whatsoever. I’d like to hear it, and I’m sure we would. We should not continue down this road. It is oppressive for no good reason, an excuse to perhaps control all development by controlling all land even that occupied by those already here. Residents need exception for quality of life. Those of us that are already here, already living here, we want to enjoy the property, and we would like to do so without this type of constant interference or on the part of many people, fear.

[0:20:12]

Randy Parker:

What are they going to do to me? We need the exception for quality of life. We do not need, and I’ve backed these words out several times guys, but they’re here now, and I’ve looked them up, what we do not need is autocratic tyrannical control of land we own and expect to enjoy. Leave the regulations to control vacant land and lots full tilt, if you must, but please let us already here be. That’s all I have to say. If you’ve nothing more, I’ll take any questions and respond to comments if I may. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, Randy. Is there any questions, comments? Oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Thank you. Is it Madam Chairwoman? Is that how that’d go? Okay. Mr. Parker, good seeing you. It’s been too long.

Randy Parker:

Hey, John, how are you? Congratulations.

John Mahoney:

Thank you. How did you arrive? I have some backup documentations here in my PDF, the packet, Randy. Can you just go into it? How did you arrive at the grandfather date of March 27th of ‘73?

Randy Parker:

Hey, John, that’s the most popular question. That is exactly the date printed on the first of my–on the front of my zoning bylaw. That is the date that we adopted modern zoning. That is the date that after its adoption, it was deemed effective by the Attorney General. So, using that date, John puts us in a pipeline with zoning. So, once zoning looks at an application, we’re all going to know if that lot is protected under zoning and then it ought to be protected under our local wetland bylaw also. So, that’s where that that date comes from, John. I had heard it was difficult to interpret, date of adoption–effective date of adoption when you relate it to the Wetland’s regulations, but now we’re in the zoning pipeline, it’s all secure. We know exactly what goes on with these properties and these lands and I want to make sure everybody understands that every one of these lots is still subject to the very stringent and very good rules and regulations 310 CMR10 that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has. So, there’s no protection being lost. I don’t know the last time you guys threw a beer can out the window, but we are some green people. We’re not abusive. If people ought to be able, John to ask themselves the question, when they go to do something within a hundred feet of a block or a pond or a stream or a swamp, they ought to be able to ask themselves with a little bit of common sense. Am I doing any harm? And if your answer is “No, I’m not” well, then do what you need to do. Stop stressing over it. But John, these are the frustrations I have after 10 plus years of opposing this sort of stuff. And I keep falling over. I think I’m going to make it this time because of the luxury of internet and information technology. Thanks, John. Did that answer your question?

John Mahoney:

It did. One more, Randy. So, I want to go through an example. So, in intense density between Bootleg Brook, Taylor Avenue in the public access beach down on Whitehorse Beach, I’m assuming all those cottages down there were built before ‘73 for the most part, correct?

Randy Parker:

Yes, they were.

John Mahoney:

Okay. So, in a scenario like that, are we opening up the possibility that you could promote greater development in a place where it shouldn’t be? Are you giving away any protections? Because in a scenario like that especially with septic and cesspool down on the beach, the significant issue. So, you’re potentially making it worse.

Randy Parker:

That’s a good question John and I really appreciate it. I’m going to rely again on the Wetlands Act and the 310 CMR10: The Wetlands Regulation promulgated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to say that we are not opening ourselves up to something that might be happening had we not a local version of Wetlands Regulations on the books.

[0:25:25]

Randy Parker:

Health, that’s another jurisdiction, and they’re the ones with control over what we can do and what we can’t do. We can’t exceed the number of bedrooms already there. In most cases, the wash just aren’t big enough to allow it. You can’t ask to increase bedroom or flow, if you need a local upgrade approval or any waiver whatsoever. So, there is not, at least in my opinion, John, a potential for any significant additional development. That’s how I’d respond to that. Thank you.

John Mahoney:

Thank you, Randy.

Randy Parker:

You’re welcome.

John Mahoney:

I’m all set.

Betty Cavacco:

Hold on.

Harry Helm:

Thank you. Randy, a question for you, and maybe part of your answer can be explaining to people, the Commonwealth Wetlands Protection aspects since you mentioned them as being what we would default to if this were to pass Town Meeting. What if I own a property from 1940, and it’s on the ocean and I want to expand the current structure towards the ocean. If this were to pass through Town Meeting being exempt from our local protections, and defaulting to the state level, the commonwealth level, would I be able to do that? Would I be able to build up to the beach or the bluff? Would I be able to build within 50 feet of that or 35 feet? You mentioned in your answer to John septic and the possibility of greater density and in your introduction, you mentioned grills and patios and fences. Let’s talk about actual expansion of structures. Talk to me about that.

Randy Parker:

Well, we can talk about all that trivial stuff that I’ve already mentioned. The actual expansion of structures under the state regulations, we had just the state regulations up until about 1990, and it’s the last 20 or so years that these regulations have gotten considerably more restrictive as time has gone on with the state regulations, Harry. The state regulations, you have the wetlands. In most cases, where you’re talking, and I think you’re talking coastal wetlands, most of what occurs in those wetlands is occurring in a resource area: coastal beach, coastal dune. If you’re in a buffer to a resource area, under the state regulations with Conservation approval, you can build pretty close to that wetland right up to it if you’ve got the appropriate mitigations. So far as the reasonable expansion of dwellings and such, if any proposal addresses the wetlands interest that, 310 CMR10, the state regulations put forward, if what is being proposed addresses the defined performance standards that are very much the same in many cases identical to what we have locally, then you can do what you want to do, if you’re not doing any harm, Harry. That is what is really important here, that we are able to do things within Conservation jurisdiction. If we’re not doing any harm, and we keep running into situations, and it’s unfortunate to me, it’s like this where we’re not doing any harm but whether it’s authority, whether it’s the 25, 35, 50, 100-foot discretionary, for whatever other reason, to me in answer to your question, Harry, there is no more risk permitting under the State Wetlands Regulations, then there is permitting under the additional local regulations.

[0:30:32]

Randy Parker:

If anything, it should save us all a lot of time and money not having to deal with it unless that are too small to absorb it. Next question, please.

Virginia Davis:

Yes, hi. I’m Virginia Davis, Precinct 4 rep. And my question is because I just looked tonight at the 91 pages of the rules and regulations for the Plymouth Wetlands Protection Bylaws is why would Town Meeting be involved in voting on this? I was hoping somebody from the Conservation Commission would be here, because it’s like–all right. What are we going to vote on? I just don’t understand why either Article 4 and Article 5 are being presented to us? What do we vote on? Why would we be involved with this? Can somebody? It’s really basic. No, I want the Board to explain, someone to explain to me, why these issues would come before us as Town Meeting members. Certainly, we wouldn’t get in like here’s your issue Randy, and here’s the person and here’s the Town Meeting. We wouldn’t be involved in voting on things like that. We are not experts on that. So, that’s all. I just am in a quandary about why either one of those articles would be up for Town Meeting to vote on. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Brindisi.

Derek Brindisi:

Sure. I think as we all know this is a proposal by Mr. Randy Parker to amend the town’s bylaws. And so, every amendment to the bylaw, creation of a new bylaw requires a two-thirds vote at Town Meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Did you understand that, Mrs. Davis? Did you hear what he said?

Virginia Davis:

No, I’m sorry.

Derek Brindisi:

No, that’s not a problem I can repeat myself. So, as I just mentioned, this is a Citizens Petition to amend the existing bylaw and any bylaw amendment or bylaw creation requires a two-thirds vote at Town Meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Sure. Could you please identify yourself for the record?

Evelyn Strawn:

Good evening, and I would like to add my congratulations to the newly sworn in Board Members, and I’m delighted to be here this evening. So, I’m Evelyn Strawn. I’m here partly because I served on the Conservation Commission for 15 years. During those 15 years, I made bi-monthly site visits to the entire town looking at the kinds of projects that fall under the Wetlands’ Protection Act. As a result of that, I gained a lot of information and appreciation for the town that we live in and some of the challenges that face us. And it prompted me to now be involved more at a different level. I’m on the Sustainability Committee of the League of Women Voters, and I’m the coordinator of the network of Open Space Friends because of what I learned as a member of the Conservation Commission. I would just like to remind you that the Board has recognized the increased threats and the need to preserve and protect the resources that we have in Plymouth. It was almost exactly a year ago that the Board issued an emergency declaration because of climate disruption. The Board presented a budget that was approved by Town Meeting that includes a new position for a climate resiliency, a coordinator or planner, and the state has recognized the needs by awarding a contract on saltwater intrusion. So, as a town, we’re moving forward in protecting our resources. So, I just want to say that I do not think that this is a time to weaken these protections and to remind you that what happens on one lot, whether the law was created last month or 150 years ago, has an effect on neighboring lots and on the resources themselves.

[0:35:05]

Evelyn Strawn:

Across the Commonwealth, one-third of all wetlands have been filled in since we’ve begun building in Massachusetts. I think it would be helpful to step back and look at why we have the Wetlands Protection regulations. Yes, there is a State Law and Regulations but part of that is to create the Local Conservation Commissions to administer that law and recognize that each town has their own unique issues and therefore should have their own bylaws and regulations. So, that’s what I think we’re talking about with Article 5. So, I would just ask you to keep the big picture in mind and to not support this article. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Chris, could you–Mr. Howard.

Bruce Howard:

Good evening, Select Board members. Bruce Howard, 735 Long Pond Road, currently sitting as Chair of Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission has grave concerns regarding Article 5, which proposes exemptions for residential lots and structures existing prior to March 27, 1973. This exemption would create two classes of properties for the application of the wetlands’ protection bylaw. Homeowners may not understand or know that they must comply with the bylaw. Neighbors will see activities by others and assume that they can do the same. The Commission contends that this will result in more overhead in administration and enforcement resulting in an increase in legal actions to be taken and defended in court. The Commission is further concerned that this exemption will weaken the implementation of the wetlands’ bylaw. Less regulation of properties at the coast will result in potential degradation of health and safety of home homeowners who live there.

The proposed exemption will challenge the town’s ability to protect our wetlands, ponds and streams. The health of these water bodies are our windows to our sole source aquifer, and the exemptions proposed would have a cumulative negative effect. The Commission contends that this exemption is unnecessary. For the most part, the professional engineers who come before the Commission are able to work with their clients to do projects in an environmentally responsible way. Professional engineers work with their clients to help them understand what is permitted in the buffer zones and to evaluate practicable alternatives to locating activity within the outer buffer zone, and that’s the area from 50 feet to 100 feet from the resource area. When there are no practicable alternatives, the Commission evaluates each project based on its merits and considers project waiver submissions. Rather than create exemptions from the wetlands’ bylaw, which will create inequity between properties, confusion among homeowners’, challenges for engineers working with two sets of regulations would allow less environmentally sound projects to move forward and negatively impact our environment and aquifer. The Commission asks for your support in maintaining the town’s bylaw in support of the Wetlands’ Protection Act. Please vote no on Article 5. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m waiting for you to say something. Anyone else like to speak? Mr. Parker?

Randy Parker:

I want to thank you, Ms. Cavacco for an opportunity to close a little bit. I don’t know–first off, Evelyn Strawn, it’s always nice to see Evelyn. She was, in my opinion, the best Plymouth Conservation Chair that we’ve ever had. And it was Evelyn that I trusted many years ago. She says, “Hey, we want to vote our own regulations.” And I said, “Yeah, okay.” And we want to adopt the wetlands bylaw and have no exemption for non-conforming lots and I said, “Okay.”

[0:40:01]

Randy Parker:

We can go back to that and, you know, I’m dealing with people here that are just superb Plymouth characters and personalities and I do not like being on the other side of the fence from Evelyn or Bruce, or any of these folks. However, we talk about environmental protection. If you were to look at the maps on my wall: aquifer protection, groundwater, zones one, zone two, zone three, recreational water bodies, there is very little of Plymouth that is not protected by aquifer protection, by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, by the State Wetland Regulations. We are more than sufficiently protected in the Town of Plymouth environmentally when it comes to wetlands. There was language in a previous version that spoke to why we needed a 25-foot buffer, and it read ridiculously to me, and it’s all gone now. So, to me, really guys, I think and this is an uncomfortable thing for me to say, I think that the Wetlands Regulations that we’re dealing with locally, understanding of course that we’re looking to amend the bylaw in order to change the rules that Conservation relies upon to change their rules. The waivers that they’re talking about from 50 to 100 feet, that’s discretionary. So, they’re saying to people within a hundred foot of any wetland, doesn’t matter if it’s a dune, if it’s a beach, if it’s a bluff, if it’s a swamp, if it’s a river. We have to have some latitude to go on with living our lives and doing what residents do, without the overbearing, in my opinion, regulations that we’re looking at coming out of the Conservation Commission. So, that’s where I’m coming from. Am I frustrated? Yes. Am I angry? A little, and I’ll try not to be. Going forward, it’s a civil process, but I would encourage you to recognize the rights of everybody not just White Horse Beach, which does come across as intensely and densely occupied and used. Those people–I was down there last weekend. Isn’t it interesting? And I also have seen a bunch of continuations coming back to the Commission with changes from composting toilets to the conventional hydraulic application, which surprised me a little bit. All those people on White Horse Beach, they’re afraid they’re all going to end up with composting toilets. They don’t want that and there’s no need for it. That’s controlled by the Health Department, but not by the Conservation Commission. They also had a comment that not only aren’t we doing composting toilets everywhere on Whitehorse Beach, south of the brook, it’s ridiculous. Not only aren’t they doing that. We’re the town to continue in the eyes of those living on White Horse Beach to persecute them for being where they are, get rid of White Horse Beach, those people are a bonus. They have no services and the comment was to me, “Yeah, you take away White Horse Beach, the Town of Plymouth is going to go bankrupt.” I don’t believe that, but that’s what their thinking is. And whether you’re dealing with the state wetlands regulations or you’re dealing with the town’s regulations, they’re very much one and the same. The state isn’t going to let us do anything on dunes and beaches that the town won’t let us do or vice versa. So, I can’t encourage the Board of Selectmen enough to recommend this and let’s get to the town meeting and have a discussion involving the entire community about these two issues: Article 4 and Article 5. Thank you so much for all the time, Ms. Cavacco.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, Mr. Parker. Any more comments from the Board, or–please identify yourself for the record.

[0:45:08]

Steve Lydon:

I have no idea about the regulations. The only water I live in is next to my pool, but I would like to know, have these regulations been compared to other towns? I don’t know how many towns but if you go up the coast, you’ve got Hingham, Weymouth, Scituate, all these, they must have some kinds of regulations. How do I always compare with those? Has some kind of research has been done to see how our Conservation Committee meets with the same regulations in other Towns, and maybe we can find a happy medium. I don’t know, but I just think that we should be able to look at other towns to see what they’re doing. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Brindisi, do you know any of that or Mr. Parker?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, I wouldn’t–go ahead, Randy.

Randy Parker:

Thank you, Derek. To the best of my knowledge, the last time I checked, about half of the municipalities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts even had a local bylaw. And Steven, I’d have to tell you very candidly that the first I ever heard of a buffer was the 25-foot buffer and I learned that Hingham had one of 50 feet. Now, so do we. So, I don’t think that is so uncommon. The 50 to 100-foot, no practicable alternative. I don’t know if that’s original thought by our Conservation Commission and Administrator or if that has been lifted from some other set of rules and regulations. So, I have a feel for how we compare, and I’ve also heard that people are watching us, other municipalities are watching to see if our Conservation Commission and our town meeting sustains this 50 to 100-foot discretionary buffer because they’re going to do it too. So, Steven, I wouldn’t be relying upon what other towns do to judge what we ought to be doing. Plymouth is special, and we should be protecting it, and we do.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Howard?

Bruce Howard:

Thank you. My wife works in as a landscape designer up and down the South Shore Coasts, and in her experience, some towns are more strict than the current rules and regs for Plymouth, and some are less. So, I think there’s a lot of variability from town to town, but I would say that we’re probably right in the middle in terms of the degree to which we enforce our standards.

Randy Parker:

If I may interrupt, do you know how many towns have 50 to 100-foot discretionary fencing? But that’s going to work itself out. We have until June 21st. Thank you all.

Betty Cavacco:

Back to the Board.

Harry Helm:

I’m going to vote no on Article 5. Last week I voted yes on Article 4 to give Town Meeting, an elected body, the ability to take a look at the rules and regulations passed by the Conservation Commission which is an appointed body in order that the voters, the residents, through their town meeting representatives would be able to have a say in these very important rules and regulations. But I can’t support this for many of the reasons that Mr. Howard pointed out. And I’m also concerned about–I understand why it’s 1993 or 1973 for the existing structures or properties rather, but I see nothing in this that does not allow somebody who purchases a property that was created prior to 1993 to not also inherit the exemption from current bylaws, and I think that that’s problematic.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? Mr. Mahoney?

[0:50:04]

John Mahoney:

Through the Chair, to the Town Manager, maybe the Chair herself, somebody could just at your earliest convenience send me a copy of Article 4.

Derek Brindisi:

Sure. Happy to do that.

Betty Cavacco:

It’s the Board’s pleasure.

Charlie Bletzer:

Do we have to take a position on this or can we just send it and let the legislative body decide this in the special election?

Betty Cavacco:

We can vote to move it forward. Yes? Support it?

John Mahoney:

I think no motion–even if you take no motion or action, it still goes to the–it’s a citizens’ petition.

Derek Brindisi:

Right. It’s a citizens’ petition.

Charlie Bletzer:

That’s where I’m coming from.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Charlie Bletzer:

Because I see merits on both sides, but I’m just one vote, and I’d rather leave it up to our legislative body and let them make that decision.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Dick Quintal:

I just have a comment. I understand that we were going to see these regulations before they were voted on after a third-party looked at them because I don’t recall seeing any of them.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct. We were supposed to–there was a third party that was supposed to be hired. They were going to come back to us before they voted in any of these regulations and that did not happen. So, I actually support this article for some of the reasons that Mr. Bletzer said for our legislative body to be able to discuss it. And I realized that both sides do have merits, but it gets very difficult when you’re on your own piece of property, and you’re not building on a wetland, but you’re putting up a post and beam fence or something like that, something small that Mr. Parker is quite correct because I’ve heard from quite a bit from residents that are on the beach and everything, and it’s tens of thousands of dollars to fight a position like that when it’s just a little two-foot fence. So, I actually support this article to move forward for Town Meeting, but like I said, it’s the pleasure of the Board.

Harry Helm:

I will motion this article for discussion and vote.

Betty Cavacco:

Is there a second? I’ll second it. All those in favor? Okay. No action.

Derek Brindisi:

If I could, Madam Chair, if I could just interject. Just so we’re clear, all Citizens’ Petitions regardless of the vote or action or inaction taken by the Board will go to the Town Meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay, perfect. Thank you, Mr. Parker and Mr. Howard.

Harry Helm:

A procedural question, Betty. No one voted yes for it, but no one was given a chance to vote no.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Harry Helm:

So, are we just assuming that because no one voted yes, we all voted no? Or–

Betty Cavacco:

Well, it’s really–there was a motion but no action, so it still moves through the same system. It’s going to go to Town Meeting unless you want to–

Harry Helm:

Well, I just think the reason that I motioned it was so that there would be a record of how the members of the Board of Selectmen felt, the Select Board felt about this particular article because I would like to be on record as voting no.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Yeah, Ms. Cavacco, just if you wanted to send this with no motion, no action I think the original motion and the second would have to be withdrawn.

Betty Cavacco:

Do you want to withdraw your motion? And I’ll withdraw my second.

Harry Helm:

So, you’re asking me to withdraw the motion for discussion and a vote, and we would then just have no motion, no action?

Betty Cavacco:

Correct.

Charlie Bletzer:

Correct.

John Mahoney:

Betty, even if you withdraw your second then there’s no second then that doesn’t lead to that.

Betty Cavacco:

I’ll withdraw my second.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah, I don’t want to say it. Thank you.

[0:55:02]

Betty Cavacco:

You guys can say it. Okay.

Randy Parker:

Thank you all so much for all the time. I appreciate it. Good night.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thanks, Randy. I still would like to know what the outcome was of the third-party and what the differences were.

Betty Cavacco:

Right. Mr. Brindisi, can you get that report for us?

Derek Brindisi:

You are referring to the Conservation Commission’s most recent report?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, well, it was–like I said, there was a third-party. They were supposed to come back to us before they put any policies in place. Our understanding that policies were put in place without them coming back to us.

Derek Brindisi:

I will follow up.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Charlie Bletzer:

Was Mr. Howard still there? Because he would know that, wouldn’t he? If he’s still up there.

Bruce Howard:

I’m still here.

Charlie Bletzer:

The third-party report, do you have that?

Bruce Howard:

The third-party report was received. The Commission went through the individual line items on that report and adopted many of them. Not all, but many of those recommendations from the third-party reviews. And remember, we did two third-party reviews. We first reviewed it with town council. Those recommendations were assessed and many were adopted. It was then as part of a public hearing, and then when the Select Board requested that we go outside for a third-party review, we took those recommendations from the third-party, we assessed them individually, voted on them and many were adopted and included in the rules and regs that had since been formally voted on and adopted in an advertised and public hearing.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, if I remember right, he came before us, we had a citizen stand up, and he found 47 different mistakes and some of them he didn’t think were legal with some of your new rules and regulations. And at that time, we asked you for a third-party report, and to this day, we’ve never seen the report. So, you never– the Select Board has never seen the report.

Betty Cavacco:

And I believe–

Bruce Howard:

We will give it to you as well as our assessment of those findings. Are you now going to–never mind. So, I will work to make the information available to the Select Board.

Charlie Bletzer:

Well, the way I understood it was you were going to get us the report and we’re going to be able to look at it before you voted on the new rules and regulations.

Bruce Howard:

That was not the motion, sir.

Charlie Bletzer:

Well, we can probably look into that, but that’s how I recollected, so.

Betty Cavacco:

Chris, would you mind getting the minutes to that meeting? Thank you. Anybody else? Any other Board members? Okay. Let’s move on to the next agenda item is the Town Manager’s report.

Derek Brindisi:

All right, great. So, just a couple updates. I think everybody has noticed that on the website, the Town Clerk has posted the election results, but I just want folks to keep in mind that that’s not the official vote tally. So, they’re still working through counting some hand counted votes. So, we would expect that the official certified election results will be posted next week, but keep in mind I talked to Larry Pizer, our Advisor to the Town Clerk’s Office, and he said what’s posted are the winners and losers. So, the winners are not going to change. The official tally is what they’re working through right now. So, just keep in mind be patient, and we’ll get the official results out next week.

Moving on, yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with Ben Thomas, from Senator Markey’s office. I had requested to meet with Senator Markey’s office to discuss a previous conversation that was held with DPH and DEP Officials about the water and the spent fuel pool. And the request I had four or five weeks ago to state officials was that I really believe that we have local experts that work for the town that should be a part of that conversation when they start sampling that water for pollutants and other materials. So, I’ve asked for Senator Markey’s assistance in getting us a seat at the table when Holtec starts to sample the water in the spent fuel pool. During the conversation, I learned that they will be identifying sampling points throughout the harbor. So, I have also asked for our Harbor Master and David Gould to be a part of the identification of those sampling points. So, I got a commitment from Senator Markey’s office that they’ll engage with state officials and with Holtec officials to get us a seat at the table. So, I’ll keep the Board posted on how we move forward with that process.

[1:00:30]

Derek Brindisi:

I want to bring something else. I talked about graffiti over a month ago, but we continue to get more and more notifications each and every day of graffiti found on public and private property. I met with staff today to try to think about some processes we can put in place. So, the first item is we really expect the public and any other individual who notices graffiti to contact a police business line. And the reason why we want to contact that business line is because it gives us the opportunity to track the numbers and types of calls and then dispatch the appropriate response agency. So, that could be the DPW on public property. We know that we have a private firm that will help us remove graffiti on private property. So, once we get a better sense of the depth of the problem, we’re also looking at best practices that we could potentially go to Town Meeting in the fall to maybe implement bylaws to prevent the misuse of spray paint. So, again, I’ve identified it as I think a growing concern here in the community especially as tourism sees them as in front of us.

As far as some updates, I mentioned a few weeks ago that we’d be opening the bids for the new portable restrooms at White Horse Beach. We’re on track to have those restrooms delivered and operational by July 4th. The crossover will be open for the first time this Saturday at 9:00 a.m. That will begin again at 9:00 a.m. and be seven 7 days a week through Labor Day. Keep in mind that effective this weekend only Morton Park and Plymouth Beach will be staffed. So, I just want folks–again, we keep talking about that every week, but I want folks to be aware of that as we head into the warmer months.

The bulkhead project next to Wood’s Seafood is still on track and expected to be completed by June 15th. And then unfortunately, the smokestack at Cordage, the demolition is now complete. That demolition was completed today. We’re now working with folks on the Board and the management over at Cordage to transport those bricks over to the water bond for future use. And then we talked a little bit a couple of weeks ago about the Pavement Management Program. So, that’s starting this week. The chip sealing and pavement management program is beginning per the request of the Board. We actually posted on the–if you go to the town’s home page under Quick Links, you can go directly there, you’ll see Pavement Management where folks from the public can go there. They’ll see if their roads are going to be paved and if their road has been identified, it’ll tell them when they will be paved.

And then last, I just want to congratulate Kaitlyn Burchill. She is now the town’s first Female Motorcycle Officer. So, again, she went to a week-long training to be that, a motorcycle officer. So, congratulations to Officer Burchill for this great achievement. Pending any questions, that’s all I have for this evening.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Derek, going back to the election, I know we had some new precincts and my question is, do you know if we have enough Town Meeting members for a quorum? I know in some places like somebody asked me today that they were voting, and it asked for nine and there was only I think six names. So, in a case like that–I mean, if it’s only one say precinct well, what if it happens in five or six? I mean, is there a magic number? If there isn’t enough, does the moderator appoint? I’m just curious if you could–if you don’t know the answer, that’s fine because I don’t need them. I’d like to know first off where we stand, and second off, what happens if it falls below the required number.

Derek Brindisi:

Right. So, I’m looking as you speak. I’m looking at the posted spreadsheet by the Town Clerk’s Office and there appears that there are a number of vacancies in some of the precincts. Precinct 7 looks like there are two vacancies right now. I’ll have to follow up with the Moderator as to what the next course of action will be to fill those vacancies.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Pat, could you please identify yourself for the record?

[1:04:59]

Pat McCarthy:

Pat McCarthy, Precinct 18 formerly 5. The process by which if there is a vacancy prior to Town Meeting, it’s up to the precinct to caucus in a replacement. There are a number of write-ins. There were 34 vacancies going into the election. So, there were 34 possibilities of write-ins, but that process is tedious. And so, if even if it’s a week before the election–before the Special Town Meeting, the precinct has to caucus and appoint someone, and you have to reach out and let people know through the media that there is an opening in your precinct. And I’ve had to do that as Chairman in Precinct 5 prior.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Hartman? Someone’s chasing you. Thank you, Mrs. McCarthy. John?

John Mahoney:

Question.

Betty Cavacco:

Sure.

John Mahoney:

Derek, so the pavement management program. So, I know in 2017, Mr. Peter got 5 million in the program that Ms. Barrett had set up. That was for two years, and then I know in ’19, he got another 5 million in town meeting, and I know the intent was to go back in ‘21 for more, but that was cancelled because of the pandemic. So, is this another allocation or were you referring to something different one? Where are these funds coming from? And is this the program that–

Derek Brindisi:

This is the same program that you’re referring to. I believe this year–so, it’s every two years the way they described it. And so, this is the first year of the two-year cycle. I believe it’s a two and a half million, $2.2 million worth of pavement we’re going to complete this year.

John Mahoney:

Okay. So, he got a third allocation since the program began at $5, 2.5 this year, 2.5 next year, I’m assuming. I’ll follow up with the DPW Director. Okay, thank you.

Derek Brindisi:

Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

Anybody? Any other questions for Derek? Derek, I have a couple. Well, not questions but comments. When you spoke of graffiti, I know that someone sent a message today that there is graffiti in the cemetery, there is graffiti on our jetty, and obviously, they just took care of the graffiti on those little fishing shanties across from Bert’s. Now, is that the Town’s or does that belong to someone else?

Derek Brindisi:

Which one? Behind, across the street–

Betty Cavacco:

The shanties, yeah.

Derek Brindisi:

Actually, those shanties came up today, and I was under the impression that those are owned by the town.

Betty Cavacco:

So, why can’t we fix them or can we fix them?

Derek Brindisi:

Well, again, that came up today and there were different opinions of what the final disposition should be for those. I do believe and I don’t see him here today, Mr. Keohan had talked to town officials in the past about putting money towards rehabilitating those buildings.

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, if it’s a money thing, I’m sure we could put something out there under the custody of maybe the DPW or our facilities department. You could probably get some volunteers. One of them is definitely falling apart. I think they may need–the other one has windows boarded up and things like that, but I think to be able to kind of get back the quaintness of those, I mean, I think I would certainly be in support of putting some money into those. Everett?

Everett Malaguti:

Everett Malaguti, currently Precinct 2. I believe that the answer for this would probably be more in Bill Keohan’s field house, because I believe there was an action through CPC that they were going to spend money of their own pots to actually refurbish and rehabilitate these structures. I know that one of the three has been burned down within the past couple of years, but the other two are in very decrepit condition, and they do need to be a more welcoming site, especially to one of our popular entrances into the town. So, I think that if the Board would confer with CPC and Bill Keohan, I think that would be the first step of action before anything else. Thank you.

Charlie Bletzer:

Can I ask a question?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure.

Charlie Bletzer:

Everett, I have a question for you. Is it historic value or what would the purpose of those buildings going to be?

[1:10:07]

Everett Malaguti:

I believe it would be a historic value more. It does represent the fishing and nautical history of the Town of Plymouth, and there was–if I can recall from a few years ago, before there was action from CPC for the rehabilitation of these, that there was talk. It wasn’t finalized through any votive action from them that it could be used as rentals for artist cottages or stuff like that similar to what is done, I believe in Hyannis or another town along the Cape that has this sort of structures that artists can use during the summer for their activities and whereas in sale, but I don’t know the full plan for the CPC, but it is a historic part for our nautical past.

Betty Cavacco:

Derek, could you reach out to Mr. Keohan about that?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, I’m happy to have that conversation to see.

Betty Cavacco:

And while we’re in that area, can we get some kind of update on Bert’s and find out what’s going on there? We hear that they’re going to rebuild it. We’ve been hearing it for years and years and years, and it’s just outrageous to even look at anymore. Anyone else for Mr. Brindisi? No? Okay. Public comment. Is there anyone that–Mr. Serkey, please identify yourself for the record.

Rich Serkey:

Rich Serkey, Town Meeting member Precinct 2. I’ve previously spoken about why I believe it would be unwise to locate a racetrack on the county-owned wood lot. I’m here tonight to say that it would in fact be illegal to locate a racetrack on the county-owned wood lot. On Sunday night, I was made aware that Massachusetts State Law currently actually prohibits a racetrack from being located on premises owned by the Commonwealth or one of its political subdivisions. And I would refer those who are interested to Chapter 128A Section 3L. I’m astounded that this prohibition was not discovered by council for Boston South, by Council for the County Commissioners or by Town Council assuming that is that Boston South, the County Commissioners and the Select Board had sought the opinion of their respective attorneys at the outset, as we repeatedly urged.

I note tonight that according to Mr. Parker, Town Council’s opinion was sought regarding Article 5 of the special town meeting warrant regarding the applicability of wetlands regulations to grandfathered lots, but why wasn’t Town Council’s opinion sought regarding the proposed racetrack? Especially, given the fact that we urge the Select Board to ask for town council’s opinion. In any event, for this reason alone, I respectfully urge you to rescind your March 29 vote in support of Boston South’s due diligence regarding this land. And the way to do it I would suggest is to put it on the agenda for a forthcoming meeting of the Select Board when you can revisit this whole issue instead of giving support for further due diligence in pursuit of an illegal use. Thanks.

Betty Cavacco:

Derek?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, I’m happy to help clarify. And I think Mr. Serkey, you’re correct, the law as you describe it is true and accurate. However, this property would be allowed to be used as a horse racing facility if it was disposed off to a private property owner.

Rich Serkey:

If it were conveyed to a private property owner?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right.

Rich Serkey:

Then it would no longer be county-owned land, but my understanding throughout is that the county proposes to lease the land for a racetrack. That’s the representation that’s been made all along. And in that event, it’s county-owned land and a racetrack can’t be located on county-owned land. That’s my understanding.

[1:15:05]

Derek Brindisi:

So, again, you raised some valid points but just you mentioned county on land, a number of times.

Rich Serkey:

Yeah.

Derek Brindisi:

And this is not the County Commissioners in this room. So, what the county decides to do with that property I think it still remains to be seen because you asserted that the town hasn’t done their homework on that. And I think part of the reason we haven’t spent money on Town Council is because it’s not the town’s project, it’s the county’s project. So, in this case, if the county decides to dispose of it to a private property owner, then it certainly would be able to be a horse racing facility. Whether or not they decide to lease it, again, that’s entirely up to them and they’ll make that decision at the county level.

Rich Serkey:

My only point is that if it’s a lease and if the ownership remains in the county, then according to current state law, a racetrack cannot be located on it. End of story, RIP.

Betty Cavacco:

Hi, can you identify yourself for the record?

Elise Bruno:

Hello, I’m Elise Bruno, a Precinct 18 Rep. I’m also here to talk about the wood lot. I understand that question four on the ballot this past weekend was non-binding. However, since some of the Select Board use this issue in their campaign and others have stood out with voters against the idea of a horse track in Plymouth and the voting results provided an almost 90% no vote to this, I would like to request that the issue of the wood lot being developed by Boston South be put on a future agenda. It has been insinuated by Boston South that the present zoning of the wood lot allows for horse racing, even though this is not true. It’s owned for light industrial and rural residential. The Select Board has provided BoS itself with the conditional letter of approval to pursue a horse track along with a full range of other alternative uses. Since the approval letter was written, it has become clear that Boston South’s first and only priority is thoroughbred horse racing and gambling. As much gambling is allowed by the law, I would like to request that since it seems that the Select Board is unanimously opposed to the idea of a horse track that the Plymouth Board of Select persons immediately declare their oppositions to Boston South’s lease and/or acquisition of the wood lot or any other property in Plymouth and further declare their opposition to commercial horse tracks, casinos or any other similar venture in Plymouth as the voters do not want this kind of cultural shift to take place in America’s Hometown.

With that said, I find that the only way to fully trust the word of the Select Board would be to re-sign the letter of approval as actions speak louder than words, and it would be most transparent to do so publicly. I think that the issue brings up a perfect opportunity to pursue other economic initiatives. I think that this wood lot parcel is a prime location to set up an ecotourism route. If we were to add a more extensive trail system to what’s already there, we could boost it from Myles Standish right through the Eel River Preserves into the Russell Mill conservation area, out through the wood lot and ultimately lead to Long Beach. If we put in some money into there, you could have people come here to ride horses, you could get mountain biking going on in there, you could get a bunch of other ecotourist activities, maybe even campsites set up there. Something that promotes the natural history of this town instead of something that’s going to bring in you know, we know what gambling and all that’s going to bring in, and our infrastructure is going to go down, but there are other more sustainable long-term initiatives that I think we can pursue that better suit the end value of this wood lot than going for a large development project that 90% of the voters don’t even want. A lot of them it seems would prefer preservation. So, I just think that’s something we should think of, and it’s an economic opportunity that I think we shouldn’t let slip out of our grasps. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, and we don’t normally respond to public comment, but there are a couple of things that I’d like to say. First of all, we did not approve horse racing. We approved the process to go forward for the best use of that land. Second of all is that with the vote that was taken on Saturday and 88% of our residence was a resounding no, that was the plan to have it as an agenda item. I’ve already spoken with the Town Manager.

[1:20:01]

Betty Cavacco:

I have sent him the records request that was received by some residents with Boston South, and it does look like they just want to proceed with what they want. So, I suggest that we put this on the agenda that the request for information that we received regarding Boston South and the Gaming Commission and everything else that be addressed through our legal counsel, and we can make June 7th, an agenda item to discuss this in more detail. Because I agree that that was not the purpose of that original letter. It was to approve a process, it was to approve nothing else, but a process not a horse track, not a–nothing. It was just the process to see what the best use of that property was. They haven’t even signed the lease yet, so I think June 7th would be a good date. We are not meeting next week, it’s Memorial Day weekend and I figured after a long election cycle and back-to-back meetings for quite some time that the Board could probably use the night off. So, we will–please make that an agenda item and hopefully, and if we need an attorney here, please have KP Law join us or if we need a special counsel, we can do that as well.

Charlie Bletzer:

And I’d like to just add to that. It’s the County RFP they received it. They came, did a little small presentation before us that they want to invest money in Plymouth. We voted to let them do their due diligence. It’s not cost in the Town of Plymouth, a penny for them to do this. They’re spending their own money and I can tell you right now, I am not in favor of any proposal. I don’t care what it is until the infrastructure is fixed there, until that exit is fixed. So, no matter what came before me and no proposal has come before us yet. We’re probably two or three years away from any proposal coming before us. And I can tell you, we’ll be against gaming. We’re going to be against the horse racing, but I’m going to be against any proposal if they don’t fix the infrastructure there because it’s too congested at Exit 5. The people live there, and I did two standouts there, two Saturdays in a row from 10:00 to 12:00 by Home Depot, it was horrific what I saw there. So, that’s how I stand on it. And yeah, it was out on my mailings, and it wasn’t a political thing to try and get me elected. It’s how I feel. Okay? Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Through the Chair, I would like to request that Mr. Brindisi, please to be safe, announce that agenda item as a public hearing and also appropriately advertise it. Unless you have already spoken with our Town Council, and they do not believe that that’s the case.

Derek Brindisi:

I’ve sent a communication to Council regarding that very question about whether it has to be a public hearing or a public meeting. Certainly, if the statute requires a public hearing, we’d post it appropriately, but I’ll keep you abreast as to their response.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Just keep in mind that it has to be announced and advertised 7 full days in advance. We’re talking about 13 now. So, just time is of the essence. Thank you.

Derek Brindisi:

You’re welcome.

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, Dick.

Dick Quintal:

With all due respect, I think June 7th is like way too early, but I mean what do we ask council? Council, might we have horse racing on the county lot? Might we have this on there? What if they don’t do that? What if they don’t even sign the lease? So, it’s–there’s a process to this, and it starts with the county and them. We can have all the public meetings we want to have, and we will, and it’s not going to make a difference until we know what’s actually going there. I know there’s emails. It’s probably 185 pages worth I printed out. I’ve seen them, I’ve heard of them before the big breaking news this week. I haven’t read them all, but I mean, how do you have a meeting a week from now or two weeks from now when you don’t even have a proposal? What do you ask town council? I mean, seriously?

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I think unfortunately some of the body of those emails are from Boston South saying that they do have the approval of the town and the county.

[1:25:05]

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

So, I think that’s what we need to address because that in fact is absolutely not true.

Dick Quintal:

That I can understand. Like I said, I haven’t–it’s been a busy week.

Harry Helm:

Madam Chairman?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes?

Harry Helm:

I would also like to point out that in the body of those emails is a proposed timeline that Boston South has created, and they’ve been pretty good about sticking with it so far, and they plan to put their license application into the State Gaming Commission on June the 1st.

Charlie Bletzer:

Ms. Chairman?

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah.

Charlie Bletzer:

I think what we have to do is maybe change the wording in that letter and craft something that were very specific that we oppose gaming and gambling. That’s what I look in to change the wording.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, the unfortunate part about it is that our letter that Chairman Quintal signed did not approve anything that has horse racing or anything like that. Now, whether they’ve changed their position and believe that we have is different, but we need to set that record straight because especially after the vote, I think it’s safe to say that there is no one on this Board that is going to move forward with a horse track on the wood lot. No one.

Charlie Bletzer:

And if Mr. Serkey is correct, and I believe that he is, then we have nothing to worry about because they’re just wasting their money if that’s true. But like I said, no proposal has come before us. And when it does, if it’s something that the residents don’t support, we’ll never be for it, but I’m not for anything until the infrastructure is fixed. I’ll say that one more time, too.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, the wording and what we originally voted on I think is fine. However, I think we could recreate, craft another letter, leaving that the same and adding in after our election and these are the results. No way do we support horse racing, that I can see, but the original language did not address it in any way or the form, regardless of what you might see on Facebook.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct. So, June 7th as an agenda item and for the–

Dick Quintal:

Maybe draft, have a letter drafted prior to, so we can have council look at it before. Derek, do that.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Go ahead.

Pat McCarthy:

Pat McCarthy, Precinct 18 and if you’re going to do that on June 7th, I think you should notify every single Town Meeting Member because caucuses will be happening that week and the next week. And I think a lot of us are concerned about this issue. So, backing up from that, I attended the first meeting at the Commissioner’s Office when we were–the commissioner’s meeting that we weren’t allowed to speak at. I also–we gave testimony to the County Commissioners on May 9th. Many of us are here in this room. They videotaped it. They said they are putting it on their website on a YouTube video of it. I don’t think it’s been posted yet. However, many of the issues that we brought up that night at the meeting, and they were very respectful, courteous and absorbed the issues and questions and concerns that we had, the County Commissioners and the Administrator. And I think they were surprised about a lot of our questions and concerns, and it was directly asked to them that night that I shouldn’t, I can’t quote it exactly. So, if you watch the video, you will get the exact quote from the person, that if in fact you have enough concerns, could you not sign the lease agreement with Boston South Development? And they said, “Yes.” They are due to sign it, I think it’s June 29th.

Betty Cavacco:

June 23rd.

Pat McCarthy:

23rd, so time is of the essence to make a stand. And Steve Bulletin is going to speak to one of the issues I was going to speak on. However, backing up from that, many of us got a chance to participate in their pretend presentation meeting at Memorial Hall, of which their favorite answer to us was, “I don’t know.”

[1:30:07]

Pat McCarthy:

They hadn’t even looked at the lot yet, and the guy from Vance or Vince or whatever his name was from Kentucky, all he spoke about was developing the racetrack. The issue of traffic came up. I brought up the issue since I’ve been here a long time and Hollywood East was going to save us all with the exit ramp coming in off of Route 25, and that Mass Development was going to pay for that. So, I asked Loring Tripp, who didn’t really participate. He sat there but didn’t really participate much that, I said when Hollywood East, we were counting on that to solve the traffic problem. I don’t understand with the cloverleaf, two-story cloverleaf proposal that we’ve read about, how you think that’s going to be funded or taken care of? And where are you going to cloverleaf it, around the prison? I mean, the county lands the county land, but where the heck is it going to come in? I mean, really? I mean, the more questions we ask, the more answers they didn’t have. So, I don’t really think–I think time is really of the essence to have that letter written rescinding. I don’t care what your first letter said, they’re interpreting it the way they want to interpret it. Let’s see what else did I have to say.

And in terms of the vote on Saturday, there were–the records were about I think it was 6,468 “no” and 881 “yes.” And I think some people actually went in to vote and only voted on the question, because when you tally up, and you look at all the voters that was their specific reason for going to vote and some of them were all brand-new voters. And statistically, it looked like about 14.5% of the population voted on that question–of the voters voted on that particular question. The other question that was brought up when they keep telling us about all the commercial taxes that we’re going to get, how’s that going to happen? Well, the gentleman from Kentucky explained about employee taxes. Well, we don’t have that in Massachusetts. Also, questions were asked about the Granite Links awesome project they have up there and there are seasonal employees up there, what happens to the seasonal employees down here? I think–is that where the gaming parts going to come in, and we’re going to have a racino. And I hate to bring–

Betty Cavacco:

I think we can–I think we should save all this for the 7th, when we have a specific–

Pat McCarthy:

Well, I hope that’s not too late. That’s my–I think that under new business maybe you could discuss doing a rescinding of a letter sooner. Thank you.

Steve Bulletin:

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Select Board. I’m Steve Bulletin, Planning Board Member. I’m not an expert in Massachusetts Gaming Law, but I am an attorney and I have reviewed the statutes. They are clear as mud, and that’s something that I think Boston South is counting on. Mr. Serkey is correct in his reading of chapter 128A 13 sub-L. That particular provision is scheduled to be rescinded July 31st 2022. That’s because it is going to be put into a new regulation, but we have no idea what that new regulation is going to say. Looking at the documents that have been obtained through the FOIA request, three things really jumped out at everybody. One, there is a very close relationship between Boston South and the Mass Gaming Commission, particularly the person in charge of thoroughbred horse racing. She is absolutely adamant in her desire to reinvigorate thoroughbred horse racing here in Massachusetts, as would any government department, as they certainly want to always expand their own territory, which definitely puts us at a disadvantage in trying to prevent something that the state seems to want to have happened.

Secondly, there is no question that Boston South is looking for every loophole they can possibly find. Loring Tripp stood before this Board and said, “No, we’re not going to look for any zoning loophole.” He used those words 1 hour 44 minutes exactly into the recording at PACTV. And when I asked Mr. Gabbert to confirm that statement, his response was, “Well, we’ll do whatever we’re legally allowed to do.” I.e., if we can find a loophole, we’ll use it. So, that’s what they’re trying to do.

[1:35:25]

Steve Bulletin:

And the third thing is they are doing their darn best to completely circumvent this town. One of the things that is noted in the documents that we have seen is a question as to whether or not under 128-14, they can go to a county vote rather than follow the instructions of the town. So, to Mr. Bletzer’s point, to Mr. Quintal’s point, yes, you do not have a proposal in front of you, but you know what it is they want to do. And you don’t want to have to react to a proposal and try and stop something that’s already coming down the track. You want to be proactive on this and cut it off first. You want the Town’s position to be the default position, not a responsive position. That is how we are going to lead in any fight to defeat something that our voters have said we don’t want. I understand there are people who disagree, 12%, and they have that right, absolutely have that right, but the town has spoken. The members of the Board have said they will follow the will of the people and if that is their intention, I implore you to do what you legally can to make it absolutely clear that the state does not have your approval and do not allow Boston South to twist your words in a fashion that will force you to later have to fight an uphill battle. Thank you very much.

Charlie Bletzer:

Question. Wait, Mr. Bulletin? Steve, I just got a question for you. Unless I read it wrong, it says that unless they get approval if the Selectmen have to vote if the proposal comes before us, they will not give them a license unless we approve the proposal.

Steve Bulletin:

Under the current regulations, under 128A 13A, they adopt the provisions of 277-33, which say exactly that, that the town has to have a vote by its executive, in our case a Select Board, after a 7-day notice period a public hearing, which must be advertised and placed in a conspicuous notice place. So, I assume somewhere on Town Hall would be just fine, after which your position is the one that the State should be accepting, and they should not be allowed to go ahead and do that. However, again, we have different regulations that they are trying to circumvent that, which is why it is so critical. And I again, I understand the original letter that Mr. Quintal wrote and I’ve commented on it to a number of people, it was very clear. It says, “We do not approve any specific use for this lot.” It was clear and yet somehow Boston South has managed to submit that to the Gaming Commission saying we have the approval of the Select Board and the County Commission. So, the state isn’t looking very clearly at what you’ve written. So, I think you need to make it so clear.

Charlie Bletzer:

I get it. I get it. So, it was accurate when you responded to the letter when there were some criticism out there, well there was a nut out here but maybe out here too but definitely on Facebook and you clarified it when you said that the way we voted, the way we left horse racing out of that letter that we were correct in not approving horse race in the game, because you were clear and you and I appreciate you explaining what that vote was about. You understood it.

Steve Bulletin:

Well, as an attorney, I understand the purpose of your language. At the same time, as an attorney, I can also tell you that I have litigated hundreds of cases over whether or not a word says what everybody says it says.

Charlie Bletzer:

Steve, it’s very simple. The proposal is–they haven’t got the proposal yet. They don’t have a license application in front of us. If they did tonight, we would all vote no. You can be very comfortable, the citizens out there should be comfortable. In a couple of weeks, if we have to change the wording in what we set, I’m sure we can accommodate that and do that.

Steve Bulletin:

And I have every confidence in you that you will do that. I merely point out, as Mr. Helm has noted, there’s a timeline that they have. They’re trying to beat you to the state. And so–

[1:40:12]

Charlie Bletzer:

They’re not going to–we’re not going to let them beat us, and there’s a lot of other business that we have to move on to down the road. We can’t just keep every meeting going over this.

Steve Bulletin:

I agree with you, and that’s why again, cut the serpent’s head off now.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, no, it’s easy. It can be done, so.

Steve Bulletin:

Thank you, members.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, Mr. Bulletin. Just a conversation with the Board, if a public hearing is what we need to do then why we have time now that we can post it, we have the 7 days, why don’t we just consider it a public hearing, so it dots all our eyes and crosses our T’s if we need it. So, June 7th will be a public hearing. Could you please state your name for the record?

Donna Curtin:

Donna Curtin, Precinct 3. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I just would like to observe that there is a difference between appearance and intent. And following Mr. Bulletin’s very eloquent comments, I think there is the appearance even though the intent of the Board was not to give support to the very unmistakable efforts of Boston South and this group of interests to introduce horse racing to our Town. The intent of the Board may not have been to give support of that, but in some ways that is how it is being presented and used and it is the appearance thereof. And therefore, I would urge you on whenever your next consideration of this matter is to listen to the distress of the townspeople, that this appearance is not something that people are going to accept, that this appearance I think many of us citizens feel is dangerous to our community, and it’s the appearance of the support that you need to address, and there is one clear way to do that and that is to rescind the letter that you wrote. Not to draft a new letter, to rescind the letter that you wrote. And if your idea is to let the county develop their proposal for their land, allow them to do that and allow them to come forward with a clear proposal before another letter of nominal support or whatever it might be is issued on this incredibly sensitive and important matter. So, I would ask you to put on the agenda the discussion of rescinding the letter that was issued. Thank you so much.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Anyone else? Anyone on TV, Chris?

Chris Badot:

No one.

Betty Cavacco:

And for next week, if you wouldn’t mind, I’d like to switch back to the Zoom profile, so we can see who’s on TV because this is–sometimes people are writing and messaging, and I think the Board probably would like that as well to see who we have in our audience not only here but on TV.

So, the next is Licenses and Administrative Notes. I will read some of the administrative notes, and then I will recuse myself from one of them, and Mr. Quintal will read that. So, now, I’m going to put on my new one-dollar tree glasses, so I can actually see it. MAR Promotions, 10 Pimental Way, Michelle Polvere is requesting a One Day Wine and Malt License for 6/4/22 from 5:00 pm to 11:00 pm at Memorial Hall for a Cage Titan event.

Charlie Bletzer:

Move it.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

MAR Promotion, 10 Pimental Way, Michelle Polvere is requesting a One Day Wine and Malt License for 7/22 from 5:00 pm to 11:00 pm at Memorial Hall for Cage Titans Event.

Charlie Bletzer:

Move it.

Harry Helm:      

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Spectacle Management, 57 Bedford Street, Lexington, Jack Lally is requesting a One Day Wine and Malt license from 6:00 pm to 11:00 pm at Memorial Hall for concerts on the following dates: 6/17, 6/18, 6/19, 7/27, 8/20 and 9/17, 2022.

[1:45:19]

Charlie Bletzer:

Move it.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Mr. Chairman, Vehicle for Hire? Mr. Vice Chair?

Dick Quintal:

Did you do Plentiful?

Betty Cavacco:

Oh, I’m sorry. Plentiful Catering & Events as Plimoth Patuxet Museums, 137 Warren Ave., Ryan Shanley, is requesting a One Day Wine and Malt License for 6/18/22 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm at the Craft Beer Center at Plimoth Patuxet Museum for a dinner event.

Charlie Bletzer:

Move it.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor? Unanimous.

Dick Quintal:

Vehicle for Hire, Special Occasion Limousine, Kristain Cavacco, 23 Diamond Street.

John Mahoney:

Move for approval.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? 4 in favor, one abstention.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Class II Auto Dealer, new license A&G Auto Detail Inc., 130 Camelot Drive, Plymouth, Alexander Rodrigues, president issuance of above licenses is subject to required paperwork and approval and recommendations from the Zoning Board.

Harry Helm:

Motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Temporary Restaurant expansion, private property, Cabby Shack Incorporated d/b/a Cabby Shack, 30 Town Wharf, Clyde Brini, manager, is requesting Temporary Outdoor Dining in the parking lot next to the restaurant. It is approximately 4,320 square feet with a seating area and a server station. The area is cordoned off this area. (This is temporary and in compliance with the Governor’s Act extending patio service until April 1st, 2023.)

Harry Helm:

Motion.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

I have to abstain.

Betty Cavacco:

4 in favor and 1 abstention.

Eversource Petition. Eversource Energy Petition W/O 6402815 and 7615879, one petition covering the installation of PVC conduit, cable and one handhole on Leyden Street. This work is necessary to provide underground electric service to #1 and #15 Main Street, Plymouth.

John Mahoney:

Move approval.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Derek Brindisi:

We don’t see anybody.

Betty Cavacco:

3A on hold?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, we’re going to hold that one for this evening.

Betty Cavacco:

And Eversource Energy Petition W/O 6932837, one petition covering the installation of PVC conduit (concrete encased) underground cable and conduit location. This work is necessary to provide underground electric service to a new home at 3 Greenside Way North.

John Mahoney:

Move approval.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor? Unanimous.

We have Administrative Notes 1-12, it’s up to the Board unless anybody has any questions, if someone would move as group.

Dick Quintal:

Move them.

John Mahoney:

Madam Chair, hold on a moment.

[1:50:07]

John Mahoney:

You’re suggesting moving them all at once?

Betty Cavacco:

Well, if you don’t want them–if you don’t want to, John, we can do them separately.

John Mahoney:

All right. Derek, there’s a bunch of end-of-year transfers here.

Betty Cavacco:

Do you want to do them separate?

John Mahoney:

I know there are some meeting minutes, I’m going to have to abstain from meeting minutes obviously, but the end-of-year transfers Derek, if you will. Is this the result of–all of this are result of like inflation over the course of the last 6 to 12 months getting out of control. Are you still recuperating financially coming out of the pandemic? Because this list here seems–I don’t remember these amounts and this many in past years.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, through the Chair, I mean clearly, Mr. Mahoney, you can see that the majority of the year end transfers are related to the rising fuel costs. Previous, the Board had asked the departments to do an analysis of their fuel back in I would say early April and the result is in front of you this evening. The other ones, the Town Clerk’s year-end transfer request is related to mailing costs for voter registration. This was a higher number than anticipated and unusual in fact. So, we’re still trying to get a better sense of why the mailing costs are so high this year versus previous years.

John Mahoney:

So, just a quick scan, it’s like about $350,000. Is this free cash or is this–

Derek Brindisi:

These are year-end transfer, so we would be looking at other departmental line items that have a surplus, for lack of a better term, and then we would be a would be transferring those surplus items to cover the deficits in these other line items.

John Mahoney:

Okay. And then obviously through the Chair and I don’t know if she has an answer here or the Town Manager on number 11 being asked to authorize the application for, and acceptance of, grant funds in the amount of $2 million, through the Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs with respect to the Plymouth Long Beach Mixed Sediment Nourishment Project. So, is this tied in to the $25 million that we heard about? I think one to three months ago, there was an announcement from the federal government for $25 million. Is this tied into that?

Derek Brindisi:

No. Again, through the Chair, it’s not. These are two separate programs. So, to answer your first question, there was $25 million that was award thanks in large part by Senator Markey’s Office, his strong advocacy, and that is to repair the dike over at Long Beach. This $2 million is for nourishment. This is separate. This $2 million just so we’re clear is not to–we haven’t received this money just yet. So, what we do now, and they didn’t do previously is, we require all applications before they’re submitted to go in front of the Board for approval. So, that’s what’s before you this evening. This is just so that we can get the approval by the Board to submit an application for $2 million.

John Mahoney:

Was there a presentation made to the Board on the $25 million?

Derek Brindisi:

Just an announcement.

John Mahoney:

Just an announcement. So, is that something through the Chair maybe at a future meeting we can have an agenda item and have Mr. Gould come in, and maybe he can delineate exactly if he secures the $2 million, what is that going to do for Long Beach? And I mean, I get it, it’s federal money, but I still don’t want to put $25 million out there if it’s just shoveling sand literally against the tide. And I know it’s for the revetment for the piece of infrastructure on the Atlantic side that goes out there, but I think it’s worthy of a public presentation up on the Boards. So, you know exactly what’s going on and where that is falling in on the beach and what in a perfect world David is going to do with this $2 million. So, I don’t know if he can speak on behalf. Is he allowed to speak on behalf of the Army Corps of Engineers or maybe he could have somebody come in that night?

Derek Brindisi:

Well, as we all know, David was heavily involved working with the Army Corps for many years to see that grant award through its end and ultimately came in fruition.

John Mahoney:

I don’t want to see $25 million put out there if it’s going to be gone in 5 years. So, I’d like to know exactly why–

Derek Brindisi:

Sure. Yeah, no, David certainly can come in and talk about the program. Yeah, he’s most in tune to it.

Betty Cavacco:

We’ll just put that on a future agenda.

Derek Brindisi:

Sure.

Betty Cavacco:

And actually, Everett Malaguti, who is the Chairman of the Coastal.

Everett Malaguti:

Everett Malaguti, Chairman on Natural Resources and Coastal Beaches Committee. So, the two million asked as was pointed out by Derek is correct that it’s just for the authority for them to go and seek the grants and the Board to sign off on that.

[1:55:10]

Everett Malaguti:

This is similar to a project that the department did a number of years ago for stabilization of the wash over areas on Long Beach. I think it was in 2015-16 when that project happened, and it’s a cobble nourishment. So, it’s not just dumping sand onto the beach. It’s using sand, pebbles and rocks to actually create more of a natural barrier to eliminate–well, not technically eliminate, but to slow down the erosion of the area to stabilize dunes that have been lost due to the significant storms and especially due to the Army Corps Dike that has been eroding due to lack of maintenance on their part for numerous years. Along with the $25 million that was just stated by Mr. Mahoney, I as well asked those similar questions during a couple of our Natural Resource meetings about what the actual final plan is if Plymouth has a say in some of it. We won’t have to say in all of it, because it’s a federal project, but to at least keep us abreast of the situation so that we can move forward accordingly with new projects that would come out that could be in tandem with that or other avenues that come with that. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, Everett. Do we–did we have a second?

John Mahoney:

Yeah, I’ll just have to abstain from number one and number two.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion?

Dick Quintal:

All but one and two.

Betty Cavacco:

All but one and two. So, vote unanimous, except for–

John Mahoney:

I’ll abstain from one and two.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Abstention one and two.

Okay. Committee Liaison/ Designee Updates. And John and Charlie will be going through those new committee appointments on June 7th, if you could get that together, go ahead.

John Mahoney:

Yeah, Betty, I’m going to–I’ll submit my resignation this week to the Handicap. I announced to that Board last night that I would resign. That would be the last meeting that I chaired last night. They’re going to put the first agenda item for the July meeting will be reorganization of that committee. I was holding the slot, which was formerly held for a member of the former Plymouth Nuclear Matters Committee. So, I’ll resign that and then obviously, when we go over this list if somebody wants me to go back as this board’s designee, I’ll do that.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Dick Quintal:

So, maybe.

John Mahoney:

What? You want to fight me for it?

Dick Quintal:

No. No, no, no. I meant that you stay there.

John Mahoney:

Yeah, which is falling across.

Dick Quintal:

Right, exactly. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Old business?

Charlie Bletzer:

I have some old business. I have some old business and new business. One of my constituents in Facebook brought up–

Betty Cavacco:

Can you talk a little louder?

Charlie Bletzer:

One of my constituents by way of Facebook, which I don’t really look at that much, Donna Retti [?] brought up Cherry’s Bait Shop. She’s brought up a couple of times. So, I was wondering the status on the lease. I know that just for history because I want to clarify tonight is that I believe we wanted to get that building up to code, and that’s why we terminated the lease. We’re going to put it out to bid. We had no intention of ever putting another bait, we wanted a bait and tackle, no restaurant, no bars. It was always the intent. So, then we reconsidered and we made a lease. I believe Dick, you might be able to, you’re involved in it, and they were supposed to bring up the building up the code. And it was–I forget what the date was, but I know we gave them an extension until June, which is next week. And I was by the yesterday and I still see that. It doesn’t look like the outside has been completed. So, Derek, I was wondering if we can talk to Tiffany and find out because I get obviously some constituents concern about that building, and I’d like to know what’s going to go on. Can we put that on the agenda? It’s going to be for June, because they’re supposed to be up the code by June.

[2:00:10]

Derek Brindisi:

So, yeah.

Charlie Bletzer:

We can? Okay, yeah.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, we certainly can provide an update to the Board and see what’s going on with that.

Charlie Bletzer:

I want to thank Donna Retti for bringing that up. I appreciate that. Donna, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else, old business? Letters? New business? Go ahead, John. Boy did I miss these days.

John Mahoney:

So, my first stint on the Board, Mr. Quintal was there, and it’s just a comment on how quickly the society and culture changes. And I can remember sitting a decade ago down at Lincoln Street, and you would look out at the press table and there’d be somebody there from the Old Colony Memorial. If you had–if you were in theory discussing a potential racino or racetrack, somebody would be there from the Quincy Ledger, the Brockton Enterprise and in a big issue like that, somebody would come out of The Globe or The Herald. You’d have WATD there, and you could have on the big issues 4 to 6 people out at the press table. The last decade, I mean it has changed quickly. All the content is online. What we read for news, what we see for advertisement, and obviously, picking up where Charlie left off on Facebook or social media, but we’ll go right to Facebook.

So, I know that at one of the forums I think a month ago Charlie had mentioned that the community was had either hired or will hire a Communication Director or Officer or something like that. And Derek, obviously, I’ll set up some time with you to sit down and get up on some of these issues, but Facebook is a breeding ground for misinformation, confrontation, and it’s not easy. In a perfect, we got to stay above the fray because this Executive Board were the face of the community and we’ve got to stay above the fray as much as we can. So, it’s a place you go in and I don’t know what the role of this person is going to be, but you should go in, “Hi! I’m Jane Doe or John Smith. I’m here to present you with this. There’s a meeting happening.” The decision has been made or some form of factual data is happening, and you get out or if you step into, you know, you get in to correct a piece of misinformation and get out, and I just don’t want to see–I’m looking forward to sitting with you and seeing what this job description is and how this is going to be handled as we go forward. And then obviously, that will come to the Board at a future meeting, and we’ll have a discussion on that or has that already been determined?

Derek Brindisi:

On the position itself?

John Mahoney:

The position and roles and what the expectation is, the relationship between this individual and the Executive Board.

Derek Brindisi:

We certainly can clarify those lines of communication. This position is a hybrid that I’ve talked about previous. So, as we all know Chris was sitting to my left is going to take the position that’s been vacated since Tiffany became a grant writer. And so, it was my hope and my intention, still my intention, that the position that Chris is currently sitting in will have a heavy focus on communication. So, to your point, I think we can do a better job of getting the facts out. And so, when information’s out there, folks can use our platform to fact-check what’s going on in the community, right? So, this position will have an eye towards social media, will have an eye towards working with PACTV and EDTV to do some spots of what’s going on in the community. So, there are a lot of great things that are happening, and it’s my hope that we can try to publicize that or socialize that to the community. So, press releases, I think we got to do a better job issuing press releases when good stories are out there and need to be told. And then just working with the media. You mentioned WATD, the Old Colony Memorial and just try to get good information out there, so folks know what’s going on day in and day out. Honestly, our departments and our staff do great work. And I think we need to highlight that and let folks, let them know where their money is being spent and how it’s being spent and the great work that’s happening each week. So, that’s the intention of the position, and we can certainly clarify that position’s role directly with the Select Board and what that means to them.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else for new business? Mr. Quintal?

[2:05:04]

Dick Quintal:

Derek, you got any dates, have you given any thoughts to the dates for Sandwich Road for Town Meeting members to–

Derek Brindisi:

Oh, to do a walk through?

Dick Quintal:

Yeah.

Derek Brindisi:

So, on the finance–A&F is going to meet tomorrow. Let me connect with Mr. Vayo, see when he’s available. He has stated to me in the past that he’s able to open the building, and tour the building for the public. So, let me connect with him tomorrow and then maybe I can make more of a public formal announcement tomorrow night in front of Advisory & Finance.

Dick Quintal:

It’s fine. Okay. Thank you. That’s all.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else for new business, because I’m going to have some. So, I mean, as now the new Chairman, the Chairman are the ones that set the agenda, and I’d like to do some different things with the agenda. So, we will have a public comment that is going to be the first order of business on the agenda, probably another one at the end of the meeting as well. I’d like to have a Selectman’s, whether we call it something Selectman’s corner or Selectmen discussion whatever it was, but I’d like for this Board to be able to have discussions about any issues that have come up and that they just want to get some information out there. Not necessarily that we’re going to be voting on something or doing anything like that, but I think it’s important especially where we don’t normally comment under public comment, but I think it’s important that the residents know like what we’re thinking and some of the things that we’ve addressed and things like that. So, I am going to be working with the Town Manager. We are going to set up a new agenda, and hopefully you guys will love it. And if not, I’m sure we’ll hear about it.

And another thing too, John and Charlie and Harry, it’s time for goals. John, I can send you the goals that the Select Board has. And if you could put down what your goals are moving forward, because we also need to set up some kind of workshop that we can all get together and discuss. I know you did goal setting today with your department heads, so I believe that’s a good exercise for the Board to do as well. So, I think that’s all I have. Anyone else?

Dick Quintal:

Motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to adjourn?

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Everybody has a great safe holiday weekend and we will see you on June 7th. Thank you.