February 15, 2022 Select Board Meeting

PACTV Video Coverage

Unofficial Transcript

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

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. We seemed to be live. Good evening, everyone. We are back to open session. The Select Board was in Executive Session since 5:00 PM. The first order of business as our Tree Warden to appoint Nicholas Faiella. And I believe Mr. Bader is here to present.

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah. Thank you, Vice-Chairman Cavacco. It’s a pleasure to be here. Again, Jonathan Beder, for the record, Director of Public Works. I’m here with Nick Faiella. So, Nick, I’ll be brief, but again we’re requesting that the board officially appoint Nick as Tree Warden for the Town of Plymouth.

Nick has been with us since 2013. He’s been the Parks and Forestry Superintendent for the past three years, doing an excellent job in that capacity. As you all know, Nick sees the day-to-day ops for all those two divisions. But again, he has completed his training and we’re here this evening to formally request that you officially appoint him as Tree Warden. So, thank you all very much.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Any questions from the board? I’ll await a motion. Harry?

Harry Helm:

Motion. I move.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we have a second?

Patrick Flaherty:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Excellent. Discussion? No discussion. We’ll take a roll call vote. Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

I don’t think–is Charlie here?

Harry Helm:

No.

Betty Cavacco:

Or Dick, isn’t here yet, and I’m a yes. So, it’s unanimous with the three of us. Congratulations, Nick. I know it was a lot of work for you. And JB is correct, you do a great job in our parks department so congratulations.

Nicholas Faiella:

Thank you so much. Thank you all for your time and for voting me and I appreciate it.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. Congratulations, Nick.

Nicholas Faiella:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

The next order of business is the Town Forest – Conservation Restriction. I believe that’s Mr. Gould.

David Gould:

Good evening, everyone. I provided a PowerPoint presentation and if the board would like, I can try and share that and go through that as part of the CR amendment request that we’re seeking from the board tonight.

Betty Cavacco:

Please.

David Gould:

Okay. Can you all see that?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

David Gould:

Excellent! As many of you know, the Town Forest includes a CR that has several provisions for it that allows certain uses and prohibits other uses. It includes the area in and around Great South and Little South, as well as very close proximity to the town wellhead in that location. That land also includes–the Town Forest also includes land behind PCIS. It also includes Drew Road and as I mentioned, the town wellhead in Great South Pond. The area is within actual habitat for rare and endangered species for both plants and animals, and it’s located within the Zone II of the Town wellheads.

As many of you know, there is a prohibition as part of this in the CR for parking along Drew Road and Rocky Pond Road, which is going to be the focus of this request. There is an allowance for two cars to park for fishing and boating access at the Little South Pump-house, and that gets used quite a bit during spring, summer and fall and sometimes in the winter also for ice fishing. The change that we’re looking to do to the CR requires state approval and the state agency that holds that CR is the Department of Fish and Game.

So, everyone is familiar with what we’re actually requesting, there will be no changes to the prohibition on parking along Drew Road and that’s for several reasons: One is public safety do the narrow width of the road and people parking and creating some road issues there, but also the negative impact by allowing that area to be overwhelmed. Several of the board members when we recall a few years back when we had a request to limit swimming to Great South and Little South because of all the activities going on there, it was quite overwhelmed, and the board implemented that No Swimming status will remain in place.

0:05:00

David Gould:

The proposed change is over on Rocky Pond Road, there’s an existing shoulder that’s been used for many years. When the CR was written, it didn’t include allowing parking there, so we had to enforce that. We think that there’s an opportunity to provide some additional access to Little South for cartop boats, kayaks and canoes in that location. It is already disturbed. There will be no swimming; no traversing the shoreline, which is one of the requirements that we’ve had in conversations with the state about this to date, and they’ve also advised if we do apply for the CR amendment that they would want to see some signage installed about protecting the shoreline of the coastal plain pond. However, it would allow for that increased access without damaging any resources. The other advantage it would allow us to take some of that pressure off the parking on Drew Road and allow that many more people to enjoy cartop access to Little South and then via the aqueduct over to Great South. It will require that even if we get the amendment to the CR, we still need to file a notice of intent with conservation for the work as it does fall within 100 feet of wetland. So, that is one more step and a public process through that filing as well.

Just to show the board exactly where we’re talking about, you can see this is a small gravel shoulder. And immediately adjacent to Little South Pond, you can see the pump-house in the distance as well as Drew Road. This is what that shoulder looks like up-close. As I mentioned, it’s previously disturbed. So, we’re not impacting anything that’s not already disturbed.

The Second Amendment request is for a small parking area closer to Long Pond, so on the opposite end of Drew Road. We’ve had some requests to create a little bit more parking access, so people can walk, hike or hunt in that part of the Town Forest. There is a small gate up in that location that you can’t unfortunately park in front of, it would block access. So, we’re looking to create some access immediately adjacent to that gate.

This is up. You can see over on the left side of the screen, you can see PCIS, you can see Drew Road, and you can see where the pin has been located where it says Long Pond Road parking, just a small gravel lot off of Drew Road that would allow some parking access for those who want to hike in that part of the Town Forest.

This is what it looks like currently. So, we would take that existing utility pole that’s out front, move it to the back, and there’s a few small saplings and brush that need to be cleared. So, again, we’d be seeking permission from Fish and Game as well and that is natural heritage to do that. And then that would not require any filing with conservation because it’s not within 100 feet of any wetlands. So, the CR amendment request that we would submit would include the parking on Rocky Pond Road as well as this small parking area off Drew Road. And what we’d like the board to be aware of is that we would–if the board would like us to, we will submit that CR and then also start working on the wetlands filing.

As you all know, there will be people that will be very much in favor of this CR amendment request and there will be others that think that the restrictions that are currently in place should be kept as is. We think that there’s an opportunity here to allow a little more access to the Town Forest without impacting any natural resources.

So, the next steps would be we would submit that request to the Commonwealth and specifically Department of Fish and Game. And then based on that decision, we would hopefully get our permit from Conservation, and then we would install a small split rail fence going down to Little South, some signage and placement of boulders to actually get that implemented in place. So, that is the request, and if the board members have any questions, I will certainly try to answer them.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Do any board members have any questions for Mr. Gould? No? I have a couple questions, or actually one. As you know, David, many people were pretty upset about the restrictions on Drew Road originally. Is there anything that we can do to have better access for maybe residents only? Because one of the things that I understand that people, they want to be able to enjoy these areas. I mean, some reasons why people moved here were because of these areas that they had access to, and now they no longer have access.

0:10:02

Betty Cavacco:

So, I wasn’t in favor of restrictions to begin with for this area, but I’m in favor if it’s for our residents only. And like I said, if there’s anything that you can explain a little more about what’s going on, because I’ve already heard from a few people regarding this article moving forward.

David Gould:

So, we did talk to the Commonwealth about applying for the CR Amendment request, and we had several things that we talked to them about at least informally. One of which was the area in Rocky Pond Road that we’d like to allow that additional parking. We talked about having it available to Town of Plymouth residents. And essentially what we told them is we would utilize the existing pond/beach sticker as a way for our staff to identify that they are in fact a resident. That would be very simple and straightforward to do.

Because the CR is held by the Commonwealth, they see it a little bit differently than we do. They see that they created the CR to allow access for everyone in the Commonwealth. And so, they said if we did submit, it’s probably only going to be approved if it’s for residents of the Commonwealth. They’re not specific to Town of Plymouth. So, that is the request that we’re putting forward. We certainly did try that. We even sent them a letter to that effect, but I think that the only way they will approve it will be open to everyone since they are the holder of the conservation restriction.

Betty Cavacco:

I await the board’s action.

Patrick Flaherty:

I can ask David, so you’re looking for the board’s approval to submit the request to the Commonwealth? Is that the motion you’re looking for?

David Gould:

That is correct. I think this is an area which is a lot of management issues and concerns. And so, I think it’s appropriate for us to ask the board before we move ahead with submitting that request.

Patrick Flaherty:

No, I totally understand, especially if you’re coming before the board and saying that this increased access does not have any impact the area there. I am totally sure that there is absolutely no impact because I know how meticulous you are about this on both sides of the coin when it comes to making sure that it’s protecting these areas and upholding these CRs. So, with that, I make a motion to approve David submitting the request to the Commonwealth as presented tonight.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

We have a–discussion? Sorry, guys, I can’t see the whole screen, but I’ll try and–okay. We’ll take a roll call vote. Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Charlie? And here is Charlie. Mr. Quintal, we’re taking a vote right now for the conservation restriction that Mr. Gould proposed and you’re number four. Would you like–did you were you watching? Were you able to see it?

Dick Quintal:

No. I mean, I’m having difficulties but I’m trying, yeah.

Charlie Bletzer:

Charlie, yes. I’m yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Charlie’s a yes.

Charlie Bletzer:

Sorry about that.

Betty Cavacco:

No problem. And you, Chairman Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Well, I had some questions about it but I don’t know if he’s already had him–you already had your discussion.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, you can certainly ask me questions.

Dick Quintal:

My question is, has this been put out there, David for possible any well sites or any well zones or anything like that?

David Gould:

So, the existing Town Forest land already has the CR. It is in close proximity to the wells, so that land is also already protected. The request that I’m seeking tonight is just to get authorization for the board to amend that existing CR. Currently, it prohibits the parking along Rocky Pond Road that we’re looking to put in as an allowable use so that folks can park there to access Little South for cartop boats, and then a small parking area offered new road closer to Long Pond Road. Those two things are currently prohibited by the CR, and we would like to get them in as allowable uses.

0:15:12

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Do you think that that is good enough to parking spaces for the one off at Drew Road?

David Gould:

Are you referring to the existing one near the pump station?

Dick Quintal:

Yeah.

David Gould:

No, I don’t.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, because there was a lot of–I mean, I remember this coming up before that people were upset. It might have been during the COVID or probably was that there wasn’t enough parking and I don’t want to limit the parking there if people want to use it. I mean, it really belongs to the people in the town. I mean, what was the purpose of cutting the parking down?

David Gould:

Well, so the parking that is available at the pump station is for two spaces for cartop boat and fishing access. Those get filled up very quickly. What we’re looking to do on Rocky Pond Road is give people another opportunity if they go to that location and those spaces are filled to simply go around the corner to Rocky Pond Road and have available spaces for six more vehicles. It’s in very close proximity to the pump-house, so you can simply drive over there if that’s full, then you have another opportunity. Right now, if you park over there unfortunately that’d be a violation of the conservation restriction, you’ll receive a parking ticket. We’re looking to not have that happen. We’re looking to have that parking.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, it’ll be adequate then. You’re just moving it around the other side.

David Gould:

What we would be doing is adding six more parking spaces over on the Rocky Pond Road side for access to the pond.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Thank you very much.

David Gould:

You’re welcome.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Quintal, it’s your vote.

Dick Quintal:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

I’ve already–and myself, yes, so that’s unanimous.

David Gould:

Thank you very much.

Betty Cavacco:

You’re welcome. Would you like to take over now, Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

You’re doing good. All right. So, it’d be Town Meeting Articles, correct?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Number 9 (Capital). Lee, who’s presenting? Anyone to speak to on this? Lynne Barrett? Okay.

Lynne Barrett:

So, you’ve been given a memo on Article 9 and what the acting town manager, what we’re recommending to town meeting and the provided backup should be a list of those projects that are included in the warrant and a copy of the CIC ranking spreadsheet. Obviously, on the CIC ranking spreadsheet is everything that the department’s requested, what CIC ranked those projects. And then of those projects, there are ones that we are recommending to town meeting either through Article 9, the article that you’re voting tonight or other articles that are either on the annual or on the special. So, a lot of the department heads are here this evening and division heads if you have any questions regarding any of the specific projects. And then I am also available to answer any questions that you might have.

Dick Quintal:

Any questions from the board? Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

No questions.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. I guess, there’s no questions. Wish of the board?

Betty Cavacco:

Let’s go through Article 9.

Dick Quintal:

9, right. You want to do four and five also?

Betty Cavacco:

Wait. Can we do them separately?

Dick Quintal:

Sure can. So, just nine, Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, please.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. You have a second?

Harry Helm:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor?

Harry Helm:

Aye.

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Dick Quintal:

Unanimous. Article 4, Capital also.

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah. So, same thing, you have a memo and a list of those projects and those projects are also on the CIC ranking spreadsheet. If there’s any questions, just let us know.

Dick Quintal:

Questions for Ms. Barrett? Seeing none. Await the wish of the board.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.

0:20:09

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second that.

Dick Quintal:

Second with Charlie. Discussion? All those in favor?

Harry Helm:

Aye.

Dick Quintal:

Unanimous. Article 5.

Lynne Barrett:

Article 5 is the renovation at the Manomet Fire Station. This is a project that they’ve been working on for a while. The chief is here tonight if there are any specific questions. The funding for this project is coming some from our existing funding that town meeting had voted previously for three or four fire stations and then some ARPA funding, and then the request this evening in article 4 of the special is to vote the remaining funds to authorize to borrow the remaining funds needed for this project.

Dick Quintal:

Any questions from the board for either Lynne or Chief Bradley? I guess, I just have one, Chief, will that take care of Station Five now? Is this a lot? What portion do we have left over there would that complete?

Edward Bradley:

This will complete it. What we’ll end up doing is building a brand-new living quarters and service quarters. We’re utilizing the apparatus floor again like we did over in West Plymouth, like we are doing in West Plymouth. That’s just cinder block and brick. It’s easy enough to renovate that to make it look like new, get rid of any of the asbestos-containing material that’s in there and then build the correct support and living space so that we have the zones, the warm zone when they come back from any type of call, and they’ve got equipment that’s in their own gear that needs to be contaminated and in a transition zone and then of course, the clean zone where they do most of their work.

Dick Quintal:

Any questions for the Chief or for Ms. Barrett?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll make a motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Second.

Charlie Bletzer:

And it can come quick enough, it’ll be nice seeing a building with no asbestos on premise on the front door building. So, just keep this funding can come quick enough and this rehab can come quick enough for them.

Dick Quintal:

Any further discussion? All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Dick Quintal:

Unanimous. Thank you, Chief.

Edward Bradley:

Yes. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Article 18, Plymouth Long Beach Gangway.

Lee Hartman:

So, this is a petitioned article. I do not see the petitioners here. Chris, are they out there?

Chris Badot:

Yes. Actually, Bill–

Dick Quintal:

There’s Mr. Abbott. Good evening, Mr. Abbott. Welcome.

Bill Abbott:

Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

Dick Quintal:

Would you like to give us a little bit of background for this? I believe this is the second 12 for this one, correct?

Bill Abbott:

Yes, I was the petitioner.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Bill Abbott:

I’d like to present this article. I’ve been involved with–thank you very much. I’ve been involved with Plymouth Long Beach for more than 20 years. I worked on the beach management plan, which is now the gold standard really for Massachusetts in how to effectively and fairly manage a pristine beach both for the birds that are there as well as for the townspeople who’ve used it historically as an incredible amenity and natural resource. But I’ve always thought that there was a way we could improve the access to the beach so that truly everyone could enjoy it. The regular access for as long as I can remember was that it took a four-wheel drive vehicle with a high clearance to make it out there on a so-called jeep trail, which was basically a very rocky, sometimes barely accessible to any vehicle, a dirt path that wound along the beach. I always thought a boat shuttle might be the answer and I became aware that it was a simple project that’s been discussed for several months actually going back to last summer that was being considered for just that.

0:25:00

Bill Abbott:

So, I petitioned this article, which would be the first step in opening up the beach to ordinary folks who could come by boat or shuttle and be dropped off. Article 18 asks for $68,000 to fund the first step in this project, and that’s the planning and permitting for a pier in gangway on a town-owned property in the harbor side, which was previously rented and the cottage was dilapidated and demolished leaving on the property some old pilings where this pier and gangway would be constructed. It’s about halfway between Manters Point and The Crossover.

The funding provided by this article would take the project through the concept and design phase, and permitting and preparation of actual construction documents would be ready to put out to bid and that would be the extent of what the funding would provide. But this would essentially provide the infrastructure for the boat access project. The actual operating program would be the next step after the infrastructure is in place, and the Department of Marine Affairs would presumably work with this board to develop an operating program to make it a feasible fantastic tourist draw as well as create an activity on Long Beach that I think would be a tremendous boom to the enjoyment of the beach by anyone, by ordinary folks, ordinary residents. And therefore, Mr. chairman, I ask for your support respectfully. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you very much. Do we have any questions or comments from the board?

Charlie Bletzer:

I have a question.

Dick Quintal:

Go ahead, Mr. Bletzer.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Abbott, this is just the initial price of design or whatever. What will be the total cost to refurbish that pier? What do you estimate the total cost to be of the dock space?

Mr. Abbott:

I don’t have a figure yet. I’m not a construction analyst. That would be the next step and I think the $68,000 spent would develop a budget that would then be back again for consideration or not, whether or not it’s feasible. I’ve heard figures, but I have no way of knowing that they’re true. It could be anywhere $500,000 or I don’t know whether it’s a hard number, but that’s the kind of infrastructure we’re talking about there. Hopefully, this first phase would bring that to light.

Charlie Bletzer:

The next question I have Mr. Abbott, how often–are there certain–can it only be used at high tide or can–how often will this be able to be used?

Bill Abbott:

Yeah, I’ve discussed that with the Marine Department, of the folks that run the beach out there. There certainly is a tidal situation on the harbor side. I myself have run aground there, so I know it well, but they tell me that it could work quite easily consistent with the harbor side tides, and people would become used to them and the launch, if there was a launch or a shuttle whatever would certainly operate within the tide parameters. They thought there’d be no problem in fitting it within. Anybody that’s on Long Beach has to have tides in mind on either side of the beach.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

This is the second go around of this article. It was ranked last, last year with CIC. It’s also ranked last this year with CIC. $68,000 for a study that would put something that is tide dependent and the potential of another half a million dollars after that, I feel in my opinion is an incredible waste of money. It would be a drop-off. We don’t have a shuttle and any boat could go and anchor right there without spending any money. So, I will not be supporting this article especially where it was ranked with CIC as the very last thing that we should be spending money on.

Dick Quintal:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

A question about the funding source for this proposal. What is the rationale for using the Environmental Affairs Fund for something that is actually going to bring by Mr. Abbott’s estimation more people to an already impacted environmental zone? So, Mr. Gould, if you’d like to explain that, please.

0:30:22

David Gould:

Good evening again. The rationale was for that this part of the project would require us to do design and permitting that would require us to go through an environmental process with many permitting agencies. So, in order to ensure that it’s done properly and that it gets the proper permits, we’ll be consulting with a myriad of different agencies. Everything from the state agencies to some federal agencies that deal with endangered species. So, that was the idea that that would at least get us through the design and permitting process. After that, when it was submitted by Marine and Environmental last year, the thought process was that the construction funds would then be available through a couple of different avenues. One, the state has a program for fishing and voting access that we thought would be available, as well as seaport which supports these kinds of structures within harbors, so that would be the sole one-time use of the environmental funds would be to get it through the environmental permitting process.

Harry Helm:

Okay, thank you. Another question, Mr. Quintal.

Dick Quintal:

Sure.

Harry Helm:

Mr. Abbott, in your presentation, it sounded very much in your presentation like we’re going to go from having this design study done to actually doing it. Is that in your mind what’s going to happen?

Bill Abbott:

No, not at all. The $68,000 would be spent on doing the concept, the design study and it would include actual preparation of construction documents, and then it stops. Then the town makes a decision as whether or not they’re going to put those documents out to bid. And at the same time, a program would be I presume hopefully would be worked out as how it would actually be put into operation. And I think people are going to be excited when they begin to hear about how this would take place. For the last 20 years, we’ve always thought some kind of a way to get people onto the beach without having to anchor and swim in or whatever, what was a much better way of doing it. And in terms of priorities, whether or not a peer for somebody to enjoy a beach or not is a high priority item, I don’t know. But the Finance Committee, we presented to them a couple of weeks ago, and they voted 10 to 2 thinking this was a definite amenity that townspeople would enjoy, and it makes the beach accessible now–would make the beach accessible to a whole new universe of people who can’t get out there in jeeps and high clearance four-wheel drive vehicles. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Flaherty?

Patrick Flaherty:

This question is for Mr. Gould. I know last time you came before with this, the idea was that again, you’d have the outside funding that would be the longer-term completion of the project, but this is coming out of your fund as it stands now. Are you also still fully supporting this phase of it with these funds? There’s no hesitation on your side?

David Gould:

So, when the petitioners of the article approached me about resubmitting it, I advised them that I wasn’t going to be resubmitting it, but they had an interest in doing so. They expressed an interest in using the same funding source that I had identified, which was the Environmental Affairs Fund. And since that money is still there, we thought it was an appropriate project whether or not it’d be us as the petitioners or someone else. We still think that’s a responsible use of those funds, so I do not object to using it for this project.

Patrick Flaherty:

Got it. I understand, and I think the best part about a project like this is that if you’re looking at the future uses of funding, there’s real good ideas of where it could come from that’s not a part of the town’s budget. And we’d always have that checkpoint to decide whether to move forward or not depending on the source of the funds in the future. And where I think we have yourself, Mr. Gould and this has come back before again and there’s an idea that this might enhance the tourism or people to be able to take advantage of this area. I think one thing that we hear quite a bit about is that when there’s a limitation of cars able to go out to this area, people are frustrated. So, if this is some other possible way that people can get to and take advantage of this beautiful place, I think that’s a good thing.

0:35:13

Patrick Flaherty:

I think also in the big picture to explore this and get a really good idea of the cost where it might be funded from and maybe have some of the tourism folks weigh in and what might be set up to support this, I think it is money well spent. And just for comparison of what we’re talking about, this $68,000 is 0.2 of 1% of what we just voted through in the minutes before that. $29,200,000, we just put forward and this is something I think that’s worthwhile for tourism in our town, and we get to figure out if the project should go to the full phase and developing it before we have to commit any more funds to that, so I’ll support this.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Just a follow-up along Patrick’s questioning. This is for design and permitting. Is there any money available if once this is designed and the permit is going through and it comes in front of us? So far, anything involving tourism, local enjoyment is all supposition. There hasn’t even really been a study of the tides. That might mean that there are weekend days or days during the week where it’s unusable. There will be times when the tides are such that people won’t be able to use it because they’d get out there, but they couldn’t get back within a reasonable amount of time. So, as far as I can tell, there’s been no discussion with anybody in the tourism area or really a study that would determine what the use would really look like. I mean, to say that it’s another alternative for people instead of anchoring and waiting or swimming in, I question that. This is just an example of why I’m kind of questioning all this and I do have a point, but if somebody drops their family off at the pier, where do they go? They can’t leave the boat there. They have to take the boat somewhere. So, I questioned whether it would be part of a family that would be able to use it. So, I just use that as an example just to ask you, have any studies been done or is there going to be any money appropriated to do studies after this design and build and permitting goes through and its approval by town meeting? Are you planning on funding the studies that will actually determine whether or not it is usable?

For example, it’s great to say there’ll be a shuttle service, but who’s going to do it? And is there somebody who’s willing to buy the two boats that it will be necessary to run a shuttle service? And it won’t be the launches that are used to get people from the pier to their moorings in the harbor, you have to have totally different boats. Think about this multiple families at a time with their beach gear. So, I mean, has anybody at all looked into what we’re saying about how great this would be for tourism and for the local people or are we supposing that at this point?

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Well, the key to all of this is tide dependent. I spend a lot of time on the water. I’ve seen what it looks like at half tide, you can’t get there at half tide. So, unless we’re planning on dredging that entire area, there’s very few hours that you would be able to access that and very few hours that you would be able to stay, and it’s all-around high tide. So, if the tide were to say going out for a good part of the day you wouldn’t be able to use it at all. So, I’ve seen it with no access at half tide, which is a couple of hours before high tide. So, just feasible study, that’s one thing. $68,000 that’s a lot of money. Yes, we did spend money on capital projects that we need to spend money on.

0:40:15

Betty Cavacco:

It was a robust conversation during CIC and ranked as the last. I just don’t see the need for spending this and then turning around with a half a million dollars or whatever it’s going to cost, and then it’ll be like, “Well, we have to dredge the area, so people will be able to get to it.” I just don’t think we’re in a position to do this. And I think this came up under Goldenrod at one point several years ago, when all that was going on down the beach. So, like I said, I go out there all the time, so I see what’s out there. I see the flat, I see people getting stranded out there. I mean, what happens if you drop someone off and then the family is on the beach and the boat couldn’t get back, or the shuttle couldn’t get back to pick them up. What happens to that family? What do they do, stay there all night? I think there’s just a lot more to this than throwing a gangway or a dock or whatever out there that people will be able to use and people will be able to get good use out of, and I just don’t see that.

Dick Quintal:

I have a question. Do you think if this was to be successful and moves forward that it would affect the agreement the town has in place now with the various agencies on the limitations to vehicles? I mean, could that number be altered if they were to say in our terms. Well, if you’re going to bring people out there by boat then you can have 50 or less vehicles driving over it, that would be environmentally more friendly than the way it’s being done now? Is there a possibility that that could happen? Because I mean, I definitely wouldn’t want to see that happen, but–


David Gould:

So, I can certainly speak to that. I think that’s always something that an appellant of our management plan could propose. We’ve successfully fought any restrictions when it comes to the number of vehicles getting out there, and I think we as a town would do that again. So, I don’t see that happening. I’m not going to say that it wouldn’t be requested, but we’ve successfully fought that many times in the past. So, I think we would do so again. In regards to some tidal issues or a couple of some feedback to a couple of the concerns. One, we would never aspire this project or even if it was successful and being implemented would we ever request dredging this area. One, we simply wouldn’t do it. That would be a project that I would end up having to do, and it’s simply not feasible in that location. Dredging in that location would not be something that we could ever get permits for. In terms of tidal conditions, there certainly could be some limitations on tidal conditions out there. What we need to do is to go through the permitting process and see how far we can get a fixed PS structure out there with the gangway, with floats and that would determine how far out we can get and that would tell us how frequently we could use those during all the tide events. So, once you get that. I mean, I certainly have in mind how far I’d like to get out there; how far we can do that with the permitting agencies is an unknown. You never know that until you go through that process, but that would dictate and tell you how often you could use that, how many hours, how many tides, how many days a month it would be feasible to use that. At that point, you could make a decision whether or not the cost makes sense for the amount of use that you would get. To Mr. Abbott’s earlier point, there may be a situation where it is designed and it simply isn’t something that’s going to get used to the extent we would like based on the cost. So, the town could make the decision, you know what, it doesn’t make sense to move forward or we can get a fixed pier pretty far out. Just for the example of 44 gangways and floats, and it’s usable 75% of the time and that seems to make sense based on the cost. So, those are the things we would all learn through the design and the permitting process, and you really don’t know the answers to those questions till go through that permitting process.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, Mr. Quintal, I just received a message or a question actually from a resident if I could read that.

0:45:04

Dick Quintal:

Absolutely.

Betty Cavacco:

And it said, where would all of these people who would use the shuttle going to park their cars while they go out to the beach? Parking in the waterfront downtown area is already difficult.

David Gould:

We’re not proposing to create new parking for people that would use this. That’s beyond the scope of this project. The same would be said of any new business that would begin or be started in downtown Plymouth, where are those people going to park? That’s simply not a question I can answer.

Dick Quintal:

Has anyone reached out to the beach committee?

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Quintal, Mr. Everett Malaguti has his hand up. He may be able to.

Dick Quintal:

I see him, Betty. That’s why I think you see it because I don’t think anybody reached out to the beach committee. So, if you don’t mind, I’m going to let them in.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Malaguti?

Everett Malaguti:

Yes, Everett Malaguti, Chair of Natural Resources & Coastal Beaches Committee. I am here speaking in opposition for this article for a multitude of reasons. A few of the reasons have already been stated by Selectmen Helm and Cavacco on the parking, tidal fluctuations and all that. And to extend that, if we’re going to actually have more access for boats. Boats already do anchor off of the point and when Brown’s Bank is available and kayaks already glide up on the harbor side when it’s treacherous on the ocean side of the water on the beach. So, there isn’t necessarily really a need for boats to anchor up there when there’s more fluctuation of tidal events in that area than the other side, where there’s deeper water for them to anchor for longer periods where people aren’t going to just stay on the beach for 30 minutes to an hour, they’re going to stay for eight to ten hours at times and the tides will fluctuate greatly within that causing problem for anchorage and flow.

The second is which Selectman Cavacco brought up just recently for, if someone gets dropped off at the beach, and then you have a tide fluctuation that prevents them from going or if we allow a lot of people onto the beach from a shuttle and there’s a major storm event that happens, a swift thunderstorm that comes onto the beach or something like that, how would you evacuate all them in time whether or not the tides are in favor or not because you don’t have the apparatus to bring them in a timely manner? There’s no shelter on the beach.

Another point that was brought up by Selectman Cavacco also too was, yes, in 2010, the Goldenrod Foundation actually did a proposal to the Selectmen of Plymouth stating that they would like to partner up doing a feasibility study for a shuttle service to go back and forth to the beach at a proposal of they cover 50% percent of the feasibility study and the town cover the other 50% of the feasibility study. The document is on their website and I also have a copy of it in my email as well too stating that addressed to the board at that time which Mr. Quintal was one of the members of the board at that time when it was sent to them. The agreement that they were looking at was actually not supported by the board at that time for many reasons related to the back and forth with the town and Goldenrod through legal issues upon the beach management plan.

Also, in stating for the actual structure, if we’re looking at for increased access during times of closures for clovers and other nesting birds and the vehicle access is restricted. If we do as Selectman Cavacco said if we do this, how would we accommodate for that influx of people trying to find parking spots to then take the shuttle? And also, two, if we are going to have the shuttle in operation for that whether it’s through the launch service that’s there and they would have to hire people and also expend capital to get the vessels needed, how is that going to really play with people that already bought beach stickers during the closure. So, now, they have to also pay to go on to the launch and then get to the beach on top of their beach sticker that they already paid for.

0:50:08

Everett Malaguti:

And this would be a daily occurrence for them to pay for the launch service. It’s not a one and done. Beach sticker is that you use an entire season, the launch would be paid continuously, people wanted to go to the beach and that could further reduce people actually purchasing stickers which then affects the revolving fund, which pays for the management of Long Beach and the operational salaries of the people that help manage that. So, upon those, along with what the ongoing maintenance issues could be and all that have not been fully vetted out even though it’s only a feasibility study at the moment, it’s strong evidence in this that it’s not a sound proposal to have this go forward and could possibly in the future challenge us again to go back and forth on, are we allowing vehicles on the beach or not? Which will have another huge uproar possible legal battle into the future. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Any other comments from the board? Seeing none. The wishes of the board? Excuse me.

Patrick Flaherty:

I’d like to make a motion to support the request as presented.

Dick Quintal:

Do you have a second? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

I’ll second it for discussion and a vote.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Flaherty, discussion?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah, thank you. And thank you for that, Mr. Helm. So, I think I heard reasons why this is not good to move forward because there’d be not enough people that use it, then I heard reasons, too many people would use it. It would cause a problem. I think that’s part of what we’re trying to establish is what is the use of this type of a project. And as Mr. Gould said, we wouldn’t know until this part’s done. This is the learning phase of any project like this that takes this type of funding to figure it out. There are a lot of things that we do, where if you get in a car and you get on the road and you run out of gas, well it’s not the road’s fault. I mean, if we put something in here and there’s someone who as a boater doesn’t understand how the tides work or things like that, there are certain things that anyone would have an issue with whether there’s a dock there or not. So, I think this is something I would support because we do have that checkpoint to come back and say, “Yes, this is a go ahead, because we got funding some other way, or it’s not because of these reasons.” But one thing that I hear every single year by dozens and dozens of people is that they wish they had access to this beach, and they don’t when it’s restricted for various reasons. And I think this is a good way to explore giving the residents another way to access this beach, that’s why I support it.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Any other discussion? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

It’s clear by the non-answer to my question that no actual studies have actually been undertaken or are proposed as part of this to see what usage would actually be. So, we’re being asked to spend $68,000 to create a design, yet there was no discussion of once we have the design and the permitting, we will then also do a study or use the data to do a study before we go ahead and propose spending minimum $500,000. And not answering any of the questions about more people out on a beach with no facilities whatsoever for urination or defecation. Well, there’s the ocean but for one of those. I mean, I’m just concerned that we’re going down a road that Plymouth goes down and has historically gone down of an idea that’s not fully thought out, going ahead on its own, having an inertia of its own that causes it to go forward regardless of any additional information that’s needed to be done, and then we end up spending half a million dollars or more on something that doesn’t get used.

0:55:11

Harry Helm:

It would seem to me that it would be incumbent upon and it may actually improve people’s ability to get there. It may actually improve tourism. Although, I do think it was a valid question about where are they going to park if the launch is coming from town? But we don’t know that, and there’s no part of this concept as proposed that would include anything like that. And I, myself in the 20-something year since 1995 that I’ve been here, I’ve just seen us do this time and time again. Ideas that are worthy of study even the studies aren’t fully formulated, and we go ahead with things that end up not being a good spend of the money. If at some point this came forward again with an additional study of the actual benefits, revenue benefits, actual benefits to townspeople as part of it, I would probably support it. But at this point, it’s a half measure. And it’s interesting that many years ago as Mr. Malaguti pointed out that Goldenrod actually came to the town and the Board of Selectmen and proposed doing this exact same thing, and they would pay half of it and back then they said, “No.” So, this makes it the third time it’s coming up. I just have too many questions as it’s currently proposed to let it go forward.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions from board members or comments? Seeing none, we’ll bring it to a vote. Mr. Flaherty?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

No.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

No.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

No.

Dick Quintal:

And myself, no, it does not carry. Thank you.

Seeing the time, we have the Forest Legacy on 7:30, and that we’re running a little early. So, we want to do the town managers’ report, maybe? Mr. Hartman?

Lee Hartman:

Sure. I have a handful of things. So, I’d first like to point out that last Friday, the Planning Board has created a task force to start the process of updating our master plan. It’s well over a decade old now. So, that committee was formulated, and they had their first kickoff meeting on Friday. We’ve created a webpage to move forward but again, that that process of beginning to update our master plan is underway.

I also would like to report that last Saturday, I first want to thank JB and his crew, Chris Horowitz and his staff, as well as Karen Keane and her staff. We held a Saturday session of making COVID test kits available. We gave out 4,112 of those kits to 172 residents. So, that was very successful and if anybody out there is watching, and they want test kits, you can still pick them up during normal working hours either at the Board of Health or at the Emergency Operations Center which is in Cedarville on State Road behind the fire station in Manomet.

Also, let’s see, we have received a $300,000 grant through the Board of Health. It’s a grant that goes with the Towns of Carver, Kingston, Plymouth, Plumpton and Wareham. And this money will be used to support a social worker as well as an epidemiologist to help support the communities and some of the health efforts that are underway there.

And then finally, we have received in a memorandum of understanding with the police department and the Children’s and Family Services. This is a program that they’re going to start, a pilot program, which would take and embed of trained licensed social worker and with a police officer, and they’ll be able to respond to issues where you have a behavioral or mental health crisis issue going on. So, again, this is a great kickoff program to have some trained licensed social worker go to some of those situations that we’ve heard about all across the nation.

1:00:06

Lee Hartman:

So, it’s a great innovative technology that the police chief is trying to implement in the town. So, I think that’s just like a great something different that we’re doing in the police department. Those are the quick little items that I have for tonight. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Any questions or comments for Lee?

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Chairman.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, I actually had a question and I should have asked regarding a budget question and I know that when we were putting together the beach and pond committee, we had discussed having a separate private security company be able to go along all these ponds and beaches and be able to take it to take that burden away from our police officers. From my understanding, going through the budget and looking at any of the line items, I don’t see that in there. So, I’m assuming that our town manager, previous town manager did not put that anywhere in the budget. And if I am incorrect, maybe Lee, you can enlighten me or have a plan of how we’re going to move forward or any of that.

Lee Hartman:

So, you’re absolutely correct that it’s not in the budget and that is one of the things I had on Derek’s list of things to bring to his attention too. Because again, I’m not sure at this late hour how we’d even guessed how much that would cost or how he would proceed? But again, I think that’s one of the things I’ve put on the list for Derek to start to look at as soon as possible, but yes, it is not in this year’s budget.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we know any reason why it isn’t? I know that it was a discussion amongst the board, but.

Lee Hartman:

No, the only thing I had heard is I was on the impression that a working group was supposed to get together and look at that, but beyond that I don’t know. I had no contact with that at all.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m not sure. It wasn’t a working group. It was part of the White Horse Beach discussion, and as long as Derek has it and there’s a way that we can work with the PD to try and figure something out moving forward, I think it’s important because we do have a Beach and Pond Committee that will be meeting for some other problematic areas in town that we need to address. 

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Lee, I know–I think it’s great to advise Derek. I’m a bit concerned about this because I know that the Board of Selectmen voted as part of the recommendations of the White Horse Beach parking study group for private security writing tickets, and the way that I know that is that’s the only reason I supported it. Had that not been part of it, I would have voted no to their recommendations. So, just an FYI, it was definitely part of the recommendations that the Board of Selectmen approved.

Lee Hartman:

Well, this–so, this–I will tell–so, Derek will be in tomorrow, and I will tell him that this is the second time the issue has come up and make sure that he knows that that’s one of the top priorities because this is coming up sooner than later. So, we need to figure out as soon as possible. So, I would initially think that if you hired a contractor, a private firm, my initial reaction would be that shouldn’t cost the town anything. There would be some kind of sharing of what the penalties are and the penalties to some degree would pay for that service. So, again, it might be just–I don’t want to say simple task but of Derek and procurement looking at that and figuring out if we can get an RFP out on the street to see if there is a firm willing to do that work.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, and you might want to check in with Melissa because I know that she had also done research on this subject.

Betty Cavacco:

I think it was $30,000 she figured.

Harry Helm:

Something. She had a number.

Betty Cavacco:

Right.

Harry Helm:

So, anyway, Lee thanks for whatever you can do with this.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Anything else for Mr. Hartman? No. How about we take a little 10-minute break and come back at 7:30, how’s that sound?

Harry Helm:

Sounds like a plan.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. We’ll see you all at 7:30.

1:05:54

Chris Badot:

You’re live.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Welcome back, everyone. Next up is the Forest Legacy. It’s a follow-up discussion from last week. Hi, Lee. Is Mrs. Heller here? We’re going to start out once the

Chris Badot:

Just hold on one second.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, that’s fine. Here we go.

Sharl Heller:

Hello!

Dick Quintal:

Hey, good evening, how are you?

Sharl Heller:

Very well, thank you. I’m hoping that, Mark Withington and Lindsay Nystrom will also be joining us. Do you see them there, Chris?

Dick Quintal:

Mark’s going on now. Right, good evening, Mark.

Mark Withington:

Good evening.

Sharl Heller:

Awesome. Well, thank you for having us back a second time to discuss the Forest Legacy Grant Proposal application. Oh, good. I see Lindsay Nystrom is here.

Dick Quintal:

Welcome, Lindsay.

Sharl Heller:

I am Sharl Heller, and I am speaking for the Massachusetts Coastal Pine Barrens Partnership, and Lindsay Nystrom is joining us. She is the Forest Legacy Program Coordinator for the Department of Conservation and Recreation and Mark Withington who is the Founder and Director of PHATS, that’s the Pine Hills Area Trails System. And what we thought we would do is run you just quickly through the presentation we gave you last time as a brief refresher and then Mark has a couple of slides that we sent to you this time, and he will elaborate on just a couple of points that might help clarify things. Is that okay, Chairman?

Dick Quintal:

That’s fine. Proceed, please.

Sharl Heller:

Okay, Mark. Thank you.

Mark Withington:

Great. Well, thank you everyone and good evening. I’m hoping you can see a screen that says Imagine if on the top just one screen.

Dick Quintal:

Yes.

Mark Withington:

Okay. So, thanks again for the opportunity to return and answer questions. I’m going to go through this presentation relatively quickly. Please stop me at any time if you have questions, but I thought this would be a good way just to level set. So, as we all know, the piece of property that we’re referring to is currently owned by Holtec International. We’re posing the question, imagine if the town could capitalize on this to conserve and protect wildlife, climate biodiversity and open space to promote non-motorized year-round outdoor recreation for residents and visitors. And in doing so, provide economic growth and tax relief through increased tourism visits and extended stays.

The concept would be consistent with the answer study that was conducted, I believe, back around 2000 when it was talked about the Wishbone or open space corridor that would connect Ellisville Harbor Park to the State Forest. It would have a number of additional benefits in terms of the zero-carbon goals of the state to conserve and protect rare coastal pine barrens and encourage outdoor recreation as well as education for visitors.

1:10:00

Mark Withington:

The nice thing about this is the concept we’re not being the pioneers so to speak, there is a group in East Burke, Vermont that has done this very successfully. It’s called the Kingdom Trails Association, have created a hundred plus miles of trails for outdoor recreation. So, that’s hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, etc. They have done this all on private land. So, they’ve been able to convince landowners to allow this to occur. They get about 150,000 visitors annually with an estimated $10 million of economic impact to that community. And this is all done, or I shouldn’t say all done, it’s primarily done through volunteers. Although they do have paid staff there now given the size.

So, we posed the question of what if we could do this again ourselves? So, on this piece of property non-motorized trails, also encourage private landowners that surround this property to help link together the Wishbone, it was what it was called out in the answer study and an estimate of annual visitors and economic impact. So, this was our attempt at doing back of the envelope economic impact study. It’s by far not an exhaustive one, but I think it’s directionally correct, and it’s relying on information that was published and collected by the Outdoor Foundation, the 2021 Outdoor Participation Report. It listed the 2020 to no surprise with COVID that outdoor recreation was the largest jump on record. Since they have been taking this study, everybody trying to get outside and remain sane during these crazy times.

The top four most popular: running, jogging, trail running, hiking, fishing, road biking, mountain biking, and BMX. Three of those I’ve shown at the top kind of subsets: mountain biking in blue; hiking which dwarfs almost all three and trail running on the top. This is a percentage of total population. So, what I did is, I took that percentage of total population and then used some information that was provided to me about the density of population in a 45-mile radius around the center of Plymouth. We’re about 5 million people. So, applying the population information bar chart to the left and then layering on top of that further segmentation from this outdoor research study moderate and core participants. So, moderate is someone who does outdoor activity once a month to once a week and core are crazy people like myself that do this more than once a week. So, by multiplying all of this, we came up with what market peers would refer to as the Total Available Market. So, about 867,00 000 total available people within that 45-mile radius that would be interested in these types of activities: mountain biking, hiking and trail running. It does not include horseback riding, does not include hunting, it does not include a lot of things, but again, it gives us a directional correct idea of the popularity of this.

I then reached out to the folks over at C Plymouth who were gracious enough to provide some information about our visitation. So, the numbers that they had at the time were 2019, a total of 691,000 and some change. People come to Plymouth each year, 71% or so roughly 493,000 travels from more than a hundred miles and the average night stay in Plymouth is about 2.8 nights. So, if we again applied that same reasoning to the out-of-town visitors, we said that about 86,000 of those people coming today from that distance would be interested in any of these kinds of outdoor activities. So, adding those two together, the day users as we’re calling them and the our-of-town users gives you almost a million people of total available market that could be using this facility.

1:15:13

Mark Withington:

And then I simply layered on some assumptions. I said, what if we were able to convince 5% of these people to participate, and we said that the day users came once and said, “Wow, this is so great. We’re going to come back a second time.” The out-of-town visitors, they simply extended their stay from 2.8 to 3.8 days. And then I just took a swag on average spend for a day in out of town, so I said between $60 and $120 per day for food, gas, etc. and out of town when you layer on the hotel and other various sundries $220 to $350 per day. And what that yield is about 91,000 annual visits and anywhere from $6 to $12 million dollars of additional annual tourism.

So, one of the things that I pointed out last time that I want to again point out is in a real economic impact study, these are what we would refer to as direct effects. There are things that economists would call indirect effects and induced effects. They would also talk about quality of life because there’s a value that comes along with this that would fall under the quality of life for the residents of Plymouth. So, obviously, I don’t have the resources to do all of that myself, but what I did do is to create an online petition. At the time we met last, there were about 1747 people who had signed the petition. Since then, we’re in excess of 1900.

And I thought I’d just take a snippet of comments that people left. So, Cole talked about, “Pine Hills is a truly special place, fantastic trails and community. It encompasses. I’ve made many friends and ended up spending quite a bit of time in Plymouth because of the trail network.”

Dennis I think accurately points out, “Outdoor recreation space is fast becoming one of the most valuable resources,” especially in these times of COVID when we’re all trying to stay sane.

And then I thought Michael really hit the nail on the head, “Preserving natural open space is more important than ever to mitigate climate change and provide healthy passive recreation to people, and it brings money to the town–excuse me, to the community. Everybody wins.” That’s really what we’re trying to push forward that this really is a win-win situation all the way around.

All of this information I think we presented to you, folks last time. I’ll take a breath if there were any questions. Otherwise, we have maybe two or three more slides to go. Okay. I’m going to just push on then.

And so, when we answer the question could we do this here? Certainly, we have more than enough of a property to develop the trail system. 90,000 estimated annual visitors, 6 to 12 million estimated annual economic impact and trails maintained by a network of volunteers, which we can discuss later if necessary. So, we’re coming up with a slogan of Imagine, a new way to explore Plymouth, that’s being the Pine Hills Area Trail System.

What we just wanted to talk about tonight is, as is on the agenda, what we’re looking for tonight is support of the Forestry Legacy Grant Program. So, the Forestry Legacy Program, in order to qualify, you have to have all of these. Let’s see. I guess, it says contain one or more of the following important values with the exception of riparian and hydrologic areas. All of these other aspects are contained within this piece of property. And then finally, in terms of the piece of property, this is important for us to delineate that there are in a sense two classifications of the property. There’s the property that’s currently licensed that Holtec is decommissioning. That’s highlighted in yellow and then there’s the unlicensed property, which is highlighted in blue. It’s the property in blue that we’re referring to tonight.

1:20:00

Mark Withington:

This piece of property is still being decommissioned. This is something for future discussions as to what the town would or would not like to do with that piece of property. This piece of property contains about 10 different parcels and what we’re looking for here, although, we’re presenting to you, what we’re really looking for is more as the collective us, the town would decide which of those 10 parcels would or would not be preserved, would be purchased with these funds. But at this point, really what we’re not trying to tie the town to anything more than endorsing the concept so that the grant could be submitted. And to help out in that, what we did is create a straw project plan, a very, very coarse straw project plan of about 10 steps.

There are kind of two critical dates that we’re trying to hit and that is when the grant has to be submitted on looks like July 20th and then there’s a period of time when there’s a lot of discussion back and forth and the final plan has to go to the Feds September 30. I believe that’s right, Lindsay. Correct me if I’m wrong. So, what we did is try to think of if these were the dates we were trying to hit, what would be necessary to do that? So, the first and foremost is hopefully what we’re discussing tonight is the support from the board of a letter of the grant. We would then look for the town to meet with Holtec. They’ve indicated that they are a willing seller, but they’re looking for the town to say, you know, they want to work as a partnership. They’re looking for the town to indicate what is the right thing to do. So, we would look for Holtec to create a willing seller letter. We would then enlist the resources from the Audubon society, and they would do a natural resource assessment.

We’d also leverage the knowledge that we have from the CPC group. They’ve done a lot of yeoman’s work acquiring property. So, we would want to get a survey done to assess the land value and there’s monies in the grant. And again, Lindsay, keep me honest to pay for that land assessment. So, we need to get those things together. Our estimations talking with Bill Keohan, he thought in today’s environment would take about six months to do the land value assessment, Audubon about the same. So, those are kind of the steps that we saw to putting together the draft grant application, have their committee review the application. And then as I said, there’s kind of a back and forth in editing, etc. before it’s finally submitted to the Forestry Grant Body.

After that, we would assume and again, these are just straw ideas that we would want to do a master planning, start to do some sort of master planning of the area. Obviously, with what I’ve described of 91,000 visitors, you need to have facilities: parking, restrooms, etc. We want to take all of that into account. And this would also be the time when we would start to talk about looking for matching funds. Someone mentioned at the last meeting about where additional funds would come from. I think with the town’s indication upfront that of an interest or a desire to pursue this, we can start to talk to other public and private areas about matching funds and additional funds that would be necessary. And then finally, the grant process is not a fast process. It deals with Congress; it deals with Washington. So, I guess, enough said on that.

1:25:06

Mark Withington:

The grant would be awarded around June of 24 on this timetable. So, that’s the last slide that I have. We’d be happy to answer questions or have further discussions. So, again, thank you for the opportunity to come back and talk further with you all. I’m happy to answer questions.

Sharl Heller:

I just wanted to make one tiny correction. When Mark was speaking, he said that the Mass Audubon Natural Resource Assessment and the assessment of the land values would be six months, I think he meant 60 days.

Mark Withington:

Thank you. Yeah, that’s right on both the land and the environmental in the tour, yes. And last time I kept sharing my screen. It looks like I’m no longer sharing so everyone can see one another. Okay, great.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, thank you. Any other questions from board members? Mr. Helm, then Betty.

Harry Helm:

Hey, Mark, good presentation.

Mark Withington:

Thank you.

Harry Helm:

Thanks for the slides in advance. A question for you on the timeline. I know that somewhere in the packets that we got from you that the Wildlands Trust wrote a letter to the Holtec representative, mentioning what your two groups were proposing. Has there been any feedback on their timeline? Do you feel that this timeline is in sync with what’s going to go on with that property?

Sharl Heller:

I’m a little confused, Wildlands Trust wrote a letter of support of the grant?

Harry Helm:

No, let me read you–sorry, I got to dig for it. Back in November 2021 from Karen Grey, the President of the Wildlands Trust. “Dear Mr. O’Brien,” so it was to Patrick O’Brien.

Dear Mr. O’Brien,

Wildlands Trust Inc., is writing to express our determination that the Holtec non-NRC licensed parcel should be protected forever for conservation and recreational purposes. The Massachusetts Coastal Pine Barrens Partnership is planning to apply for a US Forest Service Legacy Grant to acquire the property for permanent protection under the management of the Town of Plymouth Conservation Commission. We would like Holtec to know that Wildlands Trust Inc., supports this effort.”

So, I was wondering had there been any response? Have you’ve been in touch with them? Just a question about the timeline as proposed, do you feel that it’s timely, that we’ll be able to work with Holtec at least in terms of time frames?

Sharl Heller:

Yes, Mark pointed that out on his timeline. We assumed that if we have a letter from you by the end of the week that we will immediately try to arrange a meeting between Holtec, our interests and the Select Board, and that we should be able to pull together a grant application in the time that we have indicated, with the help of Lindsay.

Harry Helm:

Okay. And you do feel that jives with Holtec’s plans for making a determination about this parcel?

Sharl Heller:

Well, they really are 100% wanting to know that the entire town, especially the Select Board feels that that’s the best use of this property and have said that they would be a willing seller in that case, which is why we asked for different committees: the Conservation Commission and so on, to indicate that they do support this idea.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Thank you.

Sharl Heller:

And in case you’re wondering, it would be the Conservation Commission that would be the holders of the property for the Town of Plymouth.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. That’s where I was going to come in. In order for me to support any of this, it all has to be for the Town of Plymouth, through the town of Plymouth. and all of this will have to run through our office, and that’s the only way that I will ever support this at all. Any which way of it.

1:30:17

Dick Quintal:

I like a lot of the ideas, but on the other hand, we haven’t got to this point yet which I’ve been trying to say nicely in negotiations. I think in fairness without putting everything on the air, what we’re trying to do at least run it by a special council who is driving the bus really for negotiations because this will be a part of negotiations. And by no means will I ever want to be in the position where I as a select man is negotiating against you for the same purpose of the Town of Plymouth. I hope I made that kind of clear.

In other words, I don’t want us all bidding each other and putting different and confusing the pack. So, all of it’s logistical, I think we have to run it by a council. I think he has to give us some kind of a game plan and a schedule, and we can have this discussion again. Not that I’m trying to put it off, but one, we have to work in harmony in order to get to where we want to be. Because, we just left the meeting a little while ago and this is really nothing to do with this but in a way it is. The town can no longer go forward and not have any plan for any kind of economic development or any other kind of income, which this is good, trust me. But for too many years, nothing’s really happened. Everyone looks at the budget and expects the budget to do magic. The budget’s going to pay the increases for the employee, the budget is going to build a new fire station, the budget’s going to build more wells and water systems and add people, it’s not. It’s only going to decrease especially with inflation. So, as much as I love all the budget stuff, we can’t always be one-sided. We got to be just as creative on the other hand and that’s why we have to have a little balance. You know what I mean? I don’t mind the board moving a letter forward, but it’s going to be after in the strictest being of under the management of the Town of Plymouth and the Select Board at the present time. And then as we get into this, in conservation and whatever, I don’t know the game plan is what I’m basically saying to everybody. I know you’ve done your homework and the reason I didn’t reach out to you, Mark, I got your soul and all but I figured there was nothing really in here I really didn’t understand. And that’s really been my only concern is that the Town of Plymouth cannot be one working against each other and meaning all of us. And two, we have to have a plan, and it has to be run through legal counsel, which we’re not going to put on the end actually because then everyone’s going to know what we’re up to. So, we need to stay on the same page and make a plan together, that I agree with, so.

Sharl Heller:

I think Lindsay will confirm that this has to be a town initiative. This isn’t a partnership initiative or Wildlands Trust initiative. This has to be all of us working together and there are plenty of places where you can jump off without any repercussion whatsoever including the natural resource Inventory and the land value inventory. These things are long negotiations, a lot of work to come up with a plan that everyone is happy with. And at the end like I said, no obligation. All you’re allowing us to do is to start the discussion.

Dick Quintal:

Start the lead work and the discussion. Any other questions or comments from board members? Mrs. Cavacco? You’re muted, Betty.

Betty Cavacco:

Sorry. And I’d like to be sure, Chairman Quintal and Sharl and Lindsay and Mark that our grant writer is an intricate part of all of this. So, we finally have one. It took us a while to get one, but I think having her involved in this and as Mr. Quintal stated our negotiations are obviously, we can’t be discussing them open and both he and I are on the negotiating team with Holtec, but certainly supporting the plan.

1:35:05

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, I’ve always said that that should be open space and people should be walking it and riding it and not motorized, but other. So, I think conceptually we are all on the same page. We just have to find a way to work together and move forward. And I think we will be able to do that, and we’ll be successful. When you folks are talking grant and how much it’s going to be, I want them to give it to us, so.

Mark Withington:

We’re rooting for you.

Betty Cavacco:

So, but I appreciate the presentation and I think we’ll be successful if they work together.

Dick Quintal:

Ms. Heller?

Sharl Heller:

Betty, I am so excited about the idea of working with the new grant person.

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah.

Sharl Heller:

That’s huge.

Betty Cavacco:

It’s Tiffany Parks. So, she’s great at the job that she did. I’m sure she’ll be great at this job as well. So, I’m so excited about it.

Sharl Heller:

Yeah.

Dick Quintal:

Mark, did you want to say something?

Mark Withington:

Yeah, just quickly, I just you want to echo. I’m looking forward for the whole town to work together on this. Just as someone who’s lived here their whole life, I think this is a huge opportunity for the town. I can appreciate the position that you all are in negotiating with Holtec and understand fully what you’re talking about, but this absolutely has to be lockstep together, and I fully endorse what you’re saying. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Any other comments from the board? Do we need a motion? Sorry, Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah, I was just going to ask that exact question in terms of the next step, so.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, you need a motion? I was going to ask; do you need a motion to have a letter drawn up or can we just draw one up?

Betty Cavacco:

I think a motion to have a letter drawn.

Dick Quintal:

Yes, yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

As presented, what they’re requesting by the Board of Selectmen or a Select Board, I’m sorry.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Do we have a second?

Patrick Flaherty:

Second that.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor.

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Dick Quintal:

Unanimous. Thank you.

Sharl Heller:

Thank you.

Mark Withington:

Thank you very much.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Here comes the fun one. Yes, thank you all really.

Mark Withington:

Thank you. Have a good evening.

Dick Quintal:

You too. We have a fun one now, Masks in Town Buildings. Discussions. Harry? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Well, I think that given the Board of Health’s decision last Wednesday and that tomorrow they’re going to be discussing ending their public town building mask mandate rescinding that and also rescinding the public meetings mandate whatever language they had in that. They’re going to be discussing that, and I can’t predict what they’re going to do, but I think that it would behoove us. We also have passed a mask mandate for our town public buildings, and I think it would behoove us at this point to rescind that in advance of the health department’s meeting tomorrow evening.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

And just so people know that the school department also lifted their mask mandate for children. They will not have to wear masks when they come back from school vacation, which is next week.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, thanks, Betty. I forgot that part.

Betty Cavacco:

So, but I would certainly support that we make our buildings advisory and not mandated, if that’s something that we could do.

Lee Hartman:

Chairman Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Yes.

Lee Hartman:

I would just suggest that the motion be crafted in a way, where it’s subject to the Board of Health concurrence just so that we don’t have competing votes from the two boards. You can choose to just make that decision on your own. I’m not sure what that means with the Board of Health, but I would just recommend that the vote would be subject to concurrence with the Board of Health.

1:40:21

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Okay.

Dick Quintal:

Well, I mean, that would–I mean, it’s only 24 hours and the school is I believe is March 1st, right?

Betty Cavacco:

The 28th.

Dick Quintal:

Two weeks?

Betty Cavacco:

No, the 28th.

Charlie Bletzer:

Two weeks.

Lee Hartman:

But there is a chance they mainly–

Dick Quintal:

The 28th is the last day of February.

Charlie Bletzer:

Today is the–

Dick Quintal:

Hey, so it’s my turn.

Harry Helm:

So, Lee, may I ask you what would be the consequences if we voted to rescind ours without a concurrency? And the Board of Health–

Lee Hartman:

I’d have to be talking to the town council to see whether the Board of Health has precedent over the selectmen’s position. That’s why I just think it’s better if it’s done in unison. We assume the Board of Health is going to do that, but we don’t know for sure. Which is why I believe the Board of Health if they said it, we have to abide by that. So, just to avoid any confusion, I just think we want to just say you’re good with lifting it subject to them also lifting it.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I can change that motion to lifting the mask mandate for town buildings making it advisory based on the Board of Health’s decision tomorrow evening. How’s that, Mr. Hartman?

Lee Hartman:

That’s perfect.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect.

Dick Quintal:

Do I have a second?

Harry Helm:

I’ll second that.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? I think that’s the right and proper thing to do. The way to do it, so I really do. So, that being said, all those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Unanimous.

While we’re right here in this little placeholder because I thought we would be talking about when are we going to go back to a real meeting. So, it’s going to come up so we might as well just have the discussion right now. What do you think?

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I think–

Dick Quintal:

We can ask, we should be meeting in person. That’s my feel with it.

Betty Cavacco:

But we should also do a hybrid just in case.

Dick Quintal:

For those who can’t, sure. I mean, I’m willing to meet. I think there’s still a little time where Lee is at somewhere in March because of FinCom. If we were to move to Wednesday night, so we really need to have this discussion and give Lee and Derek direction in which way we want. If the board want to reach out to the Planning Board and see if one wants to go to Wednesday or they want us take in what–Harry?

Harry Helm:

Why can’t one go to Monday? I mean, historically, I believe that there was a reason that the Planning Board was Monday. The Board of Selectmen was Tuesday, and the FinCom was Wednesday, so that they weren’t on top of each other. I think if we were to move to Wednesday, we’re on top of the Finance Committee, and particularly during the run-up to town meeting, the ability of the residents and town meeting members to watch the Finance Committee meetings in real time as opposed to on a weekend when they’re busy with other things, I think is a valuable sort of thing. For us to move to Wednesday, and no one to move to Monday, it seems like we’re leaving Monday open when historically there was a reason that one of these three boards met on a Monday.

Lee Hartman:

So, I can tell you from a long time ago that the boards for most of my career both met on the same night, and it wasn’t until the live presentations of meetings came into effect that there was any discussion of moving nights. I would also point out that on Monday night, you have the School Committee too. So, there’s always a possibility of a conflict because the School Committee meets to. I’m not sure what the viewership of Planning Board, Selectmen, and School Committee are but Monday night is School Committee night too. So, I think there’s a conflict any night of the week.

1:45:08

Betty Cavacco:

Well, unfortunately, people want to be at the Planning Board meetings, people want to be at Select Board meetings, so that’s the conflict that I see. We’re both pretty important boards, not that all the boards aren’t, but it’s unfair to the residents that they may have something in the Planning Board, but they also may want to watch something that the Selectmen are addressing from our agenda. So, we have to figure something out how to get the Select Board and the Planning Board on two separate nights. I think everything else–FinCom, we shouldn’t be impinging on a Wednesday night unless we decide to go on Wednesday night after town meeting, because right now FinCom is in town meeting prep, and they’re meeting Wednesdays and Thursdays, so.

Dick Quintal:

I’ve already had this discussion with them. I wouldn’t do that to them right now, not when where they’re at, but I’m talking about moving forward. Eventually, we’re going to have to have the discussion. So, I thought for sure somebody would bring it up tonight, but.

Betty Cavacco:

No.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, I’d go off at the plan and board and there’s going to be some people that don’t like it to use our room on the night set. FinCom was in session also if they were to use it on a Wednesday. I didn’t have an issue with that and that only one board just the Planning Board. I’m trying to appease everybody, so that way we could be Tuesday, they could be Wednesday, then if FinCom was meeting in their sessions getting ready for town meeting, they could use the Great Hall, and the Planning Board could gladly use the courtroom that no one’s ever been able to use except the Select Board. As far as I know, but I don’t have an issue with that them using it for that.

Lee Hartman:

Now, I would also point out that let’s just say it’s a Planning Board on Wednesday night and rarely is there somebody wants to sit through a whole meeting and I can tell you from 20 years of experience recently, unless it’s in the neighborhood, we really have more than one or two people who physically attend the meeting. But there is a benefit that if there’s something going on with say FinCom, Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board on the same night, they can maybe see two or three different boards with two, three different things that they’re interested in and not necessarily want to sit through one whole Planning Board meetings. It’s usually topic by topic. So, there may be an advantage to having the ability when we’re back in-person to have people be able to go to a couple different boards to attend things that might be of interest to them.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

No. My question just was is there any particular–pursuant to what you were saying about using the courtroom, is there any particular reason why it was sort of only ever us using it? Was there a reason for that?

Dick Quintal:

I don’t know. You’d have to ask that was here before me. I think I know the reason, but I don’t know the reason.

Betty Cavacco:

There was a reason, let’s just–

Dick Quintal:

Go ahead, Mrs. Cavacco.

Betty Cavacco:

–leave it at that. There were certain people that didn’t want anyone in there because of the historic value. They didn’t want anything damaged or whatever.

Harry Helm:

So, well, that’s a whole different discussion spending money to preserve something that nobody can ever go there, whatever.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, if we’re going to talk about the courtroom, let’s also talk about allowing people to get married in there instead of the hallway, so.

Dick Quintal:

Can we do little pieces to you don’t know exactly to get the whole world going? I mean, like I said, it would be I’m trying to appease everybody. One day when the FinCom was meeting, the Planning Board could use it. I didn’t have an issue with that.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, I just didn’t know, because of my limited experience over the last few months if there was an actual structural well-defined reason that.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, it’s a struggle, but the whole building is. I mean, basically. I mean, we just have to watch it and take care of it. I mean, you just have to–that’ll be Lee’s new job.

Harry Helm:

Well, I think, I’m sure that the Planning Board can be trusted if they decide to take that route.

1:50:02

Dick Quintal:

I mean, I don’t know. You just built this building; somebody should have thought about how many committees we have and who’s going to meet where. I mean, I don’t know.

Lee Hartman:

And I should say, I did mention to Pearl that if she ever heard of a wedding, but I’ll talk to her again about that. Yeah, if somebody wants to have a wedding in there–

Dick Quintal:

That’s 500 bucks, why not? It’s a good venue.

Harry Helm:

I’ll bring that up at the Revenue Ideas Task Force.

Dick Quintal:

All right, easy, $200. So, alrighty. So, I know it couldn’t be before March, that I know, Harry. And I think that was from PACTV, but I guess, could you report back to us, Lee? I’ll give you a little time and you can come back and try to get this settled.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah, I need to take some time to talk to the Planning Board about it. Unfortunately, it’s not like top of my list right now, but with Derek coming on board, that should give me some time to look at some of these other things that have been just kind of hanging out there.

Dick Quintal:

No problem, okay.

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, we have been talking about it for like a year.

Dick Quintal:

Well, that’s why I want to just get it over with. You know what I mean.

Betty Cavacco:

I know.

Harry Helm:

Really?

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah.

Harry Helm:

FYI Chris Badot, because I know last week when I was watching it, they said that they would, I guess, maybe they said at their next meeting and I just assumed that it was tomorrow. So, I mean, what happens in the meantime, in the week before that?

Chris Badot:

Nancy Gantz reached out to me, and they’re meeting on the 23rd next, not tomorrow night.

Harry Helm:

Okay. So, we’re going to be keeping the mask mandate for public buildings in place for another week? Is that what’s working out here? Lee, your thoughts on that one?

Lee Hartman:

I’m sorry, I was looking at an email from the Board of Health, so go ahead. What was that?

Harry Helm:

Well, it turns out that their next meeting is not tomorrow night. And so, I think, I guess, I misinterpreted from their meeting last week when I was watching they said, maybe they didn’t say next Wednesday. They may have said next meeting and I just figured they meet weekly.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah. No, it’s the 23rd.

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, if you can go into a grocery store or any other place, and it’s a mask advisory, there’s no reason why they can’t come into a town building with or without a mask now. I mean, we have to remember, this is the people’s property. It’s not our property. So, I think you should just make it advisory just like everywhere else and then if they have a problem with it maybe–I mean, do you really want to wait a week? I don’t think I want to wait a week. How many emails have you gotten about the mask mandate in town hall or town buildings? I’ve gotten quite a few. So, I don’t know how we would go about that if we would go about that, Mr. Chairman. I’m not sure.

Dick Quintal:

It didn’t bother me, but it’s the wish of the board. I don’t have any mean mails like you have, Mrs. Cavacco.

Harry Helm:

I’ve gotten a few.

Dick Quintal:

Well, I have stunned some but not the town buildings, Harry. Advisory, I mean, it’s up to the board, whatever the board wants to do.

Patrick Flaherty:

I think we’ve been down this road though. Isn’t it the Board of Health? Is that the–

Lee Hartman:

Yeah, it is. I mean, that’s why I say, I don’t think we really want to get into the middle of this board trying to do something that’s under the purview of the Board of Health. Previously, this board set up a mandate in town hall, and they could do that without the Board of health because it’s town building, but in this case, the mandate was set by the Board of Health not by the Selectmen this time. So, for it to be removed, they need to do it. I mean, I suppose, I don’t know what would happen if we just say, “Okay. We’re going to ignore the Board of Health’s regulation”.

Harry Helm:

Well, so, I mean, I’m a little confused, Lee. You do understand that a few weeks before the Board of Health passed theirs the select board put one in place.

1:55:01

Harry Helm:

Well, I guess you’re right. I mean, we can remove ours, but it has no effect. But the only thing would be is that for that week, and maybe it doesn’t matter at all, maybe this is just splitting hairs. For that week, it would no longer be in our purview. It would be totally on the Board of Health.

Lee Hartman:

Correct.

Harry Helm:

And I do understand that there are some issues around enforcement at the various buildings that are causing some concern, but that would still continue, but we would shed any responsibility for it, if you know what I mean.

Lee Hartman:

And again, for me, it creates a little bit of confusion where you have one board says, “You don’t need to wear a mask,” and the other one says you do. And then what happens if we start getting complaints from individuals, the residents who say, “My fellow workmate is not wearing a mask,” and that person says, “Well, I don’t have to. The Selectmen said I don’t have to,” but I have to try to then explain to them that the Board of Health still says you have to. It’s just unnecessary. That’s why I think concurrently is the best way to go and maybe convey to the Board of Health that the Selectmen’s preference is to remove the ban too. I’m getting texts from them now, so I know they’re watching. So, I think they know what the preference of the Selectmen are, Select Board is.

Harry Helm:

All right. Thanks, Lee.

Dick Quintal:

Okay?

Harry Helm:

Yeah.

Dick Quintal:

All righty. Chris, is there anyone wishing to speak on the public comment?

Chris Badot:

Yes, there is.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Would you please let them in.

Chris badot:

Rolly is on his way in.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Robert Zupperoli:

Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Quintal, for allowing me this time to speak. I would like Mr. Helm to apologize to the community and to the board for the remarks he made just prior to the break this evening. It was unprofessional, insensitive, unacceptable, rude and insulting to anyone listening not to mention the person to whom the comment was directed. If I am angry, I can imagine how that person must feel. You have been elected into a position of leadership in this town. And as an elected leader, you are held to a standard. Part of that standard is to conduct yourself in a manner that is fitting to leadership.

Leaders do not resort to derogatory comments and insults simply because they disagree with someone. Leaders do not belittle people when they disagree with them, and leaders do not laugh at their sidestep. A leader would not behave in a juvenile and immature way. A leader admits their mistake, makes an apology and asks for forgiveness. In this instance Mr. Helm, it is not only the person you directed your comment to that you need to apologize to and ask forgiveness from, but it is the community and this board that you are a part of and that you represent because Mr. Helm, your behavior in this instance reflects entirely on the Board of Selectmen. If that is what you wish to put forth, that’s fine. That is your right. But for your behavior to reflect on the Board of Selectmen is highly unacceptable. Therefore, I am asking for that apology. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Harry Helm:

Mr. Chairman, may I respond?

Dick Quintal:

Yes, go ahead, Harry.

Harry Helm:

Mr. Zupperoli and residents of Plymouth, I do apologize for that comment. It was a mistake, obviously, on many levels. Not just a mistake and not realizing there was a hot mic but a mistake in sentiment. And I do apologize to the person that I was speaking of, and most importantly, I apologize to the residents of Plymouth, the folks watching who heard that comment and of course the Board of Selectmen. I do take my position of leadership very seriously, Mr. Zupperoli, for all the reasons that you stated. So, I convey my apology in that manner and that is my statement of apology not necessarily a statement to you, Mr. Zupperoli, but a statement to the entire community. Thank you.

2:00:25

Robert Zupperoli:

And on behalf of the community, thank you.

Harry Helm:

Absolutely, Mr. Zupperoli.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Chairman?

Dick Quintal:

Yes, Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

As a Select Board member, Harry, I accept your apology and I know that you’re better than that, and it was just a mistake. I forgive you and I know this won’t happen again. So, on behalf of myself, I think I speak for the board too, I accept your apology. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

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

Chris Badot:

Not that I see at the moment.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. We will move on to Licenses and Administrative Notes. We have a Spectacle Management One Day Wine and Malt Licenses for concerts at Memorial Hall for the following dates and times:

  • March 4th, 6:30 p.m. to 10 30 p.m.
  • March 12th, 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
  • March 18th, 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
  • March 19th, 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
  • March 24th, 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Dick Quintal:

Second?

Patrick Flaherty:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Charlie? Charlie, can you hear us?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’m same.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, thank you. Unanimous. Thank you.

Special Occasion Limousine: Vehicle for Hire Operator License, Kevin Cochran, 7 Pike Road.

Patrick Flaherty

So, moved.

Dick Quintal:

Do I have a second?

Harry Helm:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm seconds it. Discussion? All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Dick Quintal:

Unanimous.

J James Auctioneers and Appraisers is looking for a Special Auctioneer Permit to be held on March 5th from 4:00 p.m to 8:00 p.m.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Patrick Flaherty:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Dick Quintal:

Unanimous.

Moving on to Administrate Notes, we have two. Any questions or comments on administrative notes? if not, await a motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to move as a group.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Dick Quintal:

Unanimous.

Committee Liaison Reports/Designee Updates? Old business? Letters? New business? Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, and I know this is not really under our jurisdiction, but I received a question as to why. I guess, there’s a special education virtual–well, there’s a meeting for special education parents and the school is not offering the virtual option for these parents and I’ve gotten a couple of messages. I could send them along to the School Committee, but I believe that in this time that we’re in whether it’s COVID or whatever else, I mean, we know that virtual meetings are better for some folks.

2:05:10

Betty Cavacco:

And I think whether you’re on the town side, whether you’re on the school side, wherever you are, we should be offering this type of hybrid for our residents. So, I don’t know, Mr. Chairman if you’d like to reach out to the school. I can forward you the information and maybe have a question, but I know a couple of these parents are pretty upset about it. They want to go to their meetings virtually. They don’t want to go in-person and I believe that we should be able to offer that throughout town and school.

Dick Quintal:

Are you talking about school committee meetings or teacher-parent meetings?

Betty Cavacco:

No, this is a Special Ed presentation for Special Ed parents of children. So, I’m just wondering if we pass along the message or if there’s something you’d like me to do or you’d like to do.

Dick Quintal:

Well, I think we just pass on the message to the chairman of the school committee or the superintendent, whoever.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Dick Quintal:

I just don’t really–because the only reason I ask you the question I asked you from sitting in the negotiations that I’ve been into, that’s a contractual agreement on the parents meeting with the teachers. So, it’s been brought up and it’s been heavily debated on both sides. So, I just don’t want to go places we really don’t have jurisdiction, I guess. I appreciate the concern, I appreciate your opinion, but I think we should pass it on to the school and let them do their stuff.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. I will do that.

Dick Quintal:

Anything else under old business or new business, I should say. Seeing none, motion to adjourn?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Patrick Flaherty:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Okay. That being said, have a good evening, everybody. Thank you for watching and we’ll see you next week. Have a good one, everyone. Stay healthy.