Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 1-3-23 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board Minutes 1-3-23

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

Betty Cavacco:

–everybody and happy New Year. Would you please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

All:

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

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, everyone and welcome to the Plymouth Select Board, Tuesday, January 3rd meeting. And the Board of Selectmen have been in executive sessions since 5:30. And now, we will call this meeting to order. And the first order business is Public Comment. Is there anyone out there for public comment? Please state your name for the record.

Meg Sheehan:

Meg Sheehan from Community Land & Water Coalition. Thank you for the opportunity to speak during public comment. I’d like to speak about the drinking water aquifer and the impact of some of the development that’s going on in town. Specifically, I’d like to speak about the proposed Claremont development in Colony Place and that is at least 348 units and the Select Board secret water deal with Claremont that was negotiated behind closed doors.

Betty Cavacco:

Ms. Sheehan, there was no secret water deal. You can state what you need to state. Don’t accuse this board of anything. And you have three minutes. Thank you.

Meg Sheehan:

Okay. Thank you. In October 2022, the town engineer issued a report saying the town does not have enough municipal capacity to supply water to Claremont. This was the third set report. They said the same for the oasis and the walk and both those projects went ahead with relatively short-term fixes. In November of 2022, the Board of Selectmen, the DPW and the ZBA negotiated a water deal with Claremont for them to pay up to $2.52 million to fix a booster pump in the West Plymouth service area in exchange for an agreement to work towards town permits and town water for the project.

The town DPW stated recently that the town has a water crisis. We heard from the Town’s Water Conservation Commission that there are many measures that could be implemented to save the town water. There have been two Open Meeting Law complaints filed against the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Select Board for meeting to discuss the Claremont water deal.

Attorney Serkey previously addressed this with the board. When the town received those two Open Meeting Law complaints, the Select Board and the ZBA Chairs were required to send those complaints to their board members and to meet within two weeks to discuss those complaints. Instead, from what I understand, the Town Counsel apparently with the knowledge of the Chairs shortcut the Open Meeting Law and never sent the complaints to the board members and the boards never met to discuss them.

The town has also withheld public records relating to the Claremont water deal and has denied a public records request with no grounds. The deal that was made provides an escape hatch for Claremont that is right in the Zoning Board of appeals decision that they do not have to provide the $2.4 million. They can get water from the town by just simply paying the fees.

The Open Meeting Law and the Public Records Law are to promote transparency and accountability in municipal government. Would this Claremont water deal, if we do not properly address a holistic approach for our town water and if we don’t get it right, we will cost present and future taxpayers billions of dollars to treat contaminated water and we cannot just look right on the Cape and Mashpee and what is happening there with their water supply. Okay. Thank you.

[0:05:03]

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Anyone else for public comment? No? Anyone online?

Joe Falconeiri

Good evening, Board of Selectmen. Thank you. My name is Joe Falconeiri. I’m a Land Steward for the Northeast Wilderness Trust, which is in the process of holding a 450-acre easement on Great South Pond. My job is to oversee that property. In the summer, I reside at 101 Powder Horn Road. I have a question regarding Agenda 6, the proposed purchase of a particular 360+/- acre property east of Frogfoot Reservoir by the Department of Fish and Game. My question is, is the 300-acre +/- purchase for the Redbrook or C2 bog expansion mitigation, which one? Could you confirm? Does the 360+/- acre purchase involve lots M12, M11 or M15 or any other parcel or ID numbers? Could you please confirm? And when will the parcels M12, M11 and M15 be put into conservation restriction? Thank you and I appreciate your time.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Mr. Brindisi, could you get those answers?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, I can work with the resident.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect. Any more public comment? Okay. Community Preservation Committee Warrant Article Request. I believe–oh, there he is. Mr. Keohan.

Bill Keohan:

Good evening. Bill Keohan with the Community Preservation Committee. I just wanted to read a letter into the record that we supplied the Board of Selectmen in regards to the request. At this time, there is no request.

Dear Chairman Cavacco and members of the Board of Select,

The Community Preservation Committee would like to thank you for your invitation to attend your meeting January 3rd. The Community Preservation Committee met Thursday, December 29 to discuss the status of CPA articles for spring town meeting. The CPC voted not to request a special relief from the new deadline policy for the annual town meeting and will move the appropriate articles, if possible, to the special annual town meeting and the fall town meeting. The town warrant opening and closing process has always had a deadline and it has been the past practice of the town to offer placeholders on the warrant. Since the Town Manager has announced this deadline would be enforced and no placeholders would be offered, the CPC is fully supportive of this initiative.

The CPC commends the Town Manager on this new policy and we support it. We believe that having all the information on time will give the residents, Town manager, staff ample time to review the final language on the warrant. The CPC believes this policy will greatly enhance transparency of important public documents, which elected and appointed boards and committees in the town meeting will have to review and vote on.

The CPC is scheduled to meet Thursday, January 12th to meet with the Town Manager and staff to discuss better ways of communicating as well as implementation of the Community Preservation Act. We invite and welcome you and your input. Feel free to attend or forward your concerns.

Again, the Community Preservation Committee is not requesting special relief from this enforcement policy that’s been put out. We support it wholeheartedly. I think it’s very important that the deadlines are known by the community whether it’s boards or committees or anyone submitting any information to Town Meeting that we adhere to these deadlines. So, I’m willing to take your questions but at this time, we’re not requesting any special relief from your new policy. We support it.

Betty Cavacco:

Does the board have any questions? Mr. Helm then Mr. Bletzer then Mr. Mahoney.

Harry Helm:

Mr. Keohan, in your letter, you state the committee voted not to request the Board of Selectmen to put the CPA articles on the annual town meeting. The CPC voted to move articles that cannot be on special town meeting to full town meeting. What articles cannot be on special town meeting? And what are you proposing should be on the spring special town meeting?

Bill Keohan:

So, the special town meeting, as we all know, is an opportunity for us as a town, as town meeting to open up the fiscal year that we’re operating in and make adjustments.

[0:10:02]

Bill Keohan:

So, the special allows us to operate in that area. Typically, after conferring with the Finance Department, the CPC will make a determination of whether or not they want to put an article at the special especially when it comes to land acquisitions because land acquisitions obviously, once we have agreed upon price and we get to town meeting and town meeting takes action, we want to close as soon as we can. So, we typically would consider a special town meeting for a land acquisition. We often do this. You’ll see in spring special town meeting land acquisition so that we can act on that immediately following town meeting. This is something that we do after conferring with the Finance Department. If it can’t go on the special, we go to the fall or the annual.

Harry Helm:

Is there a purchase that the CPC wants to engage in that you will be bringing to special town meeting?

Bill Keohan:

There’s a possibility of an article, but if we can’t bring it to the special, we’d bring it to the fall. And we would operate under a purchase and sales agreement with the seller so that we had legal coverage to get to the fall to make the recommendation and then act on it after fall town meeting.

Harry Helm:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. Bill, now, if it doesn’t go till the fall, you’re not going to be able to spend any money. Oh, I shut it off. Okay, thank you. Bill, I’ll say it again, if this doesn’t go on the annual and it goes to the fall, will this be a hardship for you? Do you have appraisals that you need to spend money on? Because you’re not going to be able to spend any money until I believe October, so.

Bill Keohan:

So, we do have access to our administrative fund up until July 1st, 2023. And if the new policy is in place, obviously, in August the warrant would open and close and we would have to be prepared for that. That means we’re already moving up our application process to accommodate that new schedule. So, if we’re doing any due diligence for fall town meeting where a warrant is opening for October in August and we need to make those deadlines, we will be doing all our appraisal work for anything that comes before us under consideration. Before July 1st, we would be getting that in order.

And as of July 1st, through October, we wouldn’t be doing enough activity that would greatly undermine the Community Preservation Committee’s ability to process an application. Typically, when we do appraisals, we will share the cost with the entity that’s applying for the fund. Sometimes we share that cost. Sometimes the cost is carried by nonprofit organizations relevant to Open Space Housing and Historical. They’ll carry the appraisal cost. We do reserve the possibility of the CPC covering appraisal cost, but in this case, we think that the policy is very important kind of beyond the Community Preservation Committee. This is a policy that’s going to affect every committee and board in town, department and it’s important that it’s administered equally across the town. And that coming in and asking for relief would undermine the effectiveness of making people adhere to this policy. We didn’t want to set a precedent by requesting this relief in the environment of how important this policy is.

I think that the Town Manager and town staff have come upon something that is quite interesting that over the last 21 years, the Community Preservation Committee has been taking advantage of the placeholder process where in the past, placeholders were given out at the time of the warrant closing and final language wasn’t really due until just before your board would sign the warrant. And shortly after you signing the warrant, it would have to go before the Finance Committee and the Select Board for consideration and the vote and before it made its way to caucuses and town meeting. So, really, we didn’t really have an intact warrant until late in January for the general public to review. They would only have a week or so or two before these things went to the first committee hearings. So, having this new policy where everybody has to get everything in in the second week of December gives the residents of Plymouth five weeks to review the warrant before it’s voted on rather than one week. So, the transparency is quite impressive. We want to support it. We want to support the town’s initiative and we can manage our affairs through October without undermining our application process.

[0:15:00]

Charlie Bletzer:

Well, thank you, Bill and thank you committee too for understanding that. And I’m sure all the department heads really appreciate it too as well. So, thank you very much.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Yeah. Let me just step in here and kind of riff on the last bit of conversation you had. Why did the CPC not meet the warrant deadline?

Bill Keohan:

Well, I guess from what I can learn that the past practices of the town for the last 21 years when it came to this is we expected to have this information in after the holidays. But the Town Manager announced this policy I think to the committee on the 20th. The committee realized this. We started to increase our meeting schedule that usually we don’t have during the holidays to meet that. We were under the impression that the deadline was on the 22nd of December. It turned out it was on the 21st at 4 o’clock so we missed that deadline but we were able to do something that we haven’t done in 21 years and get all our work done by the 22nd of December rather than the 22nd of January. So, it was a kind of a file drill that we showed ourselves that we could do it and we will do it for the fall, and we will adhere to these dates that have been put before us.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Harry, are you all set?

Harry Helm:

Yeah. Thanks, John.

John Mahoney:

I’ll make a motion that the board supports putting three articles on for the CPC for annual town meeting. One article for a million dollar pay down for the Stephens Field Project, second article for a 1.1 million or number to be provided specifically by the Finance Director for the contribution for the Jenney Pond dredging and the third one for the annual set-aside routine maintenance admin function to set aside the funds that will be available July 1st. And I’ll expand on my rationale if I get a second.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we have a second?

Charlie Bletzer:

For discussion.

Betty Cavacco:

I’ll second.

Charlie Bletzer:

John, can you explain your reasoning for this? We just heard from the committee that–can you explain your reasoning to vote?

John Mahoney:

Oh, absolutely. Absolutely, Charlie. So, I completely disagree with the notion that this committee can operate without money post July 1st. It’s factually inaccurate. It can’t happen. I’ve been there before. I’ve sat through committee meetings where you’re actually signing off on dozens of invoices. Certain vendors coming in, electricians, plumbers, carpenters providing services for the CPC, removal of trees, appraisers, things of that nature. There was a CPC meeting last Thursday by Zoom, I was unable to attend. That article, that fourth article has been on the spring annual town meeting for the last 20 years. It is there every year and it overlaps year over year so that when the one fiscal year ends June 30th, when the clock strikes midnight and you move into July 1st that next fiscal year, you have money available to you.

So, what we’re doing is we’re saying hypothetically as the community in Massachusetts that has the most land in Chapter 61 that if a land opportunity comes before us in July or August, we don’t have any money available for an appraisal. And I’m not going to sit there and tell an appraiser, “We’ll pay you in four months.” That’s embarrassing. And I’ve seen that happen before. I’m a little stunned that the Community Preservation Committee last Thursday night voted to put this community in a fiscal disadvantage. And that’s where I stand on that one.

Now, if you’re going to send that one to town meeting, you might as well send the $1 million pay down for Stephens and the $1.1 million contribution, which is the 100% of the contribution for the Jenney Pond dredging. So, we were in a CPC meeting on Thursday night, December 8th. Prior to that at 6:00 p.m., there was a Stephens Field Committee meeting. Fairly well attended by the town manager and other certain department heads and town staff. We went into the CPC meeting in the same room afterwards and we discussed the four articles. And what happened was the committee was effusive in its praise of our current Finance Director in whatever she wanted to do with respect to those two paydowns we would do. So, the new revenues coming in July 1st, which we know is a surcharge on our property tax and a contribution from land transactions from the other 350 communities is roughly 4 million.

[0:20:12]

John Mahoney:

The Professional, the CFO of the $300 million business advises the community to do a $1 million pay down and then the entire nut, which is roughly 1.1 million on the Jenney Pond dredging. Mr. Gould on the Jenney Pond dredging I believe in a few months is expected to get an announcement on a grant that will be the matching. God willing, we get that. Obviously, that’s his track record. In a perfect world, that job would go out to bid in late fall and that project would be done over the winter of ’23, ‘24.

Stephens Field, I believe is going to go out bid soon. Obviously, there’s some question marks with respect to where the contractors are going to come in on that one, but I don’t know why we’re waiting. If we’re going to send one and again, the fourth one is going forward because I’m not putting this community at a fiscal disadvantage. It’s not good business. And if we’re going to do that, the other two are simple and straightforward. Those three should go to the annual.

Point of order, there’s a motion on the floor, Madam Chair.

Betty Cavacco:

A question for our Finance Director. Thank you. A question for our Finance Director. Mr. Mahoney referred to fiscal aspects of this. Would you please weigh in and explain what possible ramifications there would be for delaying the Jenney Pond, the pay down and Article D, the organizational funding.

Lynne Barrett:

So, the only one I would be concerned about is the original Article 16D that they submitted for the set-asides and the budget, particularly the budget. So, the Committee would have no authority to spend any money out of their annual budget. If they were waiting until the fall to present it to town meeting, they would not be able to incur any expenses until 10 days after the fall town meeting. They would not be able to spend any money from July 1st until sometime probably almost the end of October. That would be my concern.

Harry Helm:

Thank you.

John Mahoney:

I’m good.

Betty Cavacco:

Again, we set a policy and the committee is adhering to our policy and I asked them what do you need? Do you need to spend any money? Will this be a hardship? They say it’s not going to be. So, I just have a hard time.

John Mahoney:

It’s going to be, Charlie. Absolutely.

Charlie Bletzer:

Well, we have a committee that doesn’t think so and I’m not hearing 100% from the town that it’s going to hurt us. It’s not. So, I just have a hard time. This is going to undermine our policy and it’s going to set us up for abuse in the future. We let this go, what’s going to happen next time? We did it for this group. So, I don’t see it. So, I’m torn on this vote, yeah, but I think I’m going to listen to what the committee says and do what the committee wants.

Betty Cavacco:

Do you have something?

John Mahoney:

No, I’m good.

Betty Cavacco:

I actually disagree, Charlie because I believe that any board and committee can come before the Select Board and we can make an honest important decision by saying, “Yes, we will waive that policy and it’s important.” And quite frankly, to not have funds available for the Town of Plymouth, what happens if someone comes up to us and says, “I have 200 acres ready for sale and I want the town to purchase it.” What are we supposed to say? “Oh, sorry, we can’t even think about it for another four or five months.” I think that puts the town in quite a predicament that is, I have to agree with John, is not very business-minded. So, I actually support Mr. Mahoney’s motion to put all of them on spring town meeting. Mr. Brindisi?

[0:25:17]

Derek Brindisi:

So, I was just conferring with our Finance Director. So, part of the dilemma we’re facing here is that we’re in uncharted waters. And as we understand, the CPA, Community Preservation Act, we believe that CPC needs to make a recommendation to the board. And so, I guess, I would suggest that possibly we may want to table this until we can check with the CPA to determine whether or not CPC has to make that recommendation or if the Select Board can place these articles on the warrant unilaterally.

Betty Cavacco:

Sure. We can do that. Mr. Shirley, you’re standing now. So, I’m going to–

Russell Shirley:

No problem. So, the discussion of the meeting was pretty clear. If we hadn’t heard about this new policy that occurred two days before our meeting, things will be quite different but we’re trying to honor the policy that the Town Manager has put into effect. And we think it’s a great idea overall because that’s going to mean that people are going to have to come to us well ahead of time to get us the information so that we can act on articles into the future. So, that’s what the discussion that occurred at the meeting is we’re trying to honor a new policy that was just presented to us two days before our meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

So, you are confirming that you are maintaining that you were informed of this new policy two days before the meeting?

Russell Shirley:

Yes.

Harry Helm:

Mr. Brindisi, would you please respond?

Derek Brindisi:

So, I sent an email to all CPC members and I’m looking at it right now on November 20th with the link to the new policy. It was in this email I was asking to be on a future agenda so I could talk to them about this policy and other policies that are important to CPC and to the town. So, again, this email with the policy link was sent to the entire Community Preservation Committee on November 20th.

Russell Shirley:

I don’t disagree that that policy was set, but was not discussed by the committee until our next scheduled meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled with Mr. Brindisi in January and we’ll try to use this as a platform to move more effectively into the future, obeying the policy.

Harry Helm:

So, I just want to confirm once again, you were informed more than two days before?

Russell Shirley:

As individuals not as a committee.

Harry Helm:

I’m very confused about that point you’re making, Mr. Shirley, very confused.

Bill Keohan:

Let me just confirm what the Town Manager has indicated that on January–excuse me, on November 20th, the entire Community Preservation Committee received an email stating this is the new policy. The letter was dated the 15th of November and we had that information on the 20th. When we met at our next meetings, we adjusted our schedule, knew that we would have to meet a few more times. We were waiting for appraisals and things of that nature before we took our final votes. So, we were under the impression that it was the 22nd and that’s why we scheduled meeting on the 22nd, but it turned out to be the 21st. So, I just want to confirm that we did all receive an email from the Town Manager on the 20th of November attached was a letter dated the 15th of November that the policy was going to be changing. But again, I can tell the committee that the administrative costs are there for appraisals and if we were had to do an appraisal, we would not put the town at risk. No land would go un-appraised or unreviewed by the committee. Like I said before, there are other revenue streams that we can utilize for the appraisal process, if necessary, in terms of how we’ve done it in the past. So, again, if we are recommending anything to fall town meeting and our fiscal bus is not available after July 1st and we have warrants to adhere to in August, our appraisals and our costs are already going to be occurred before July 1st to meet those deadlines. So, we don’t feel as if we’re putting the committee at risk, it’s not. We think it was more important to support the Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager on their new policy, which is incredibly important.

[0:30:01]

Bill Keohan:

For the first time in 21 years, there is this idea that all language will be submitted by all departments and all committees and boards on this deadline. I think it’s an excellent policy and we want to adhere to it. We don’t want to set a precedent by breaking it and asking for relief when we have other options. That would not put the CPC at jeopardy.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

So, in the last meeting of November, the topic of the new policy did come up and it was met with certain hostile actions by individuals in the room. I suggested, I told the committee that I would have the Town Manager come into a meeting. I wanted Mr. Brindisi to attend the Thursday, December 8th meeting but he had already had a prior commitment and I believe it was to be in this room for a tax forum. So, again, committee not meeting with moving with any sense of urgency. Obviously, compromising the community’s ability to do business. And doing something that is unprecedented in 20 years putting the community in a negative fiscal position.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I think the explanation from the Town Manager to table this and to see checking with counsel if we are able, if the Select Board is able to move this forward. And if not, if the CPC has to recommend it. And if that is the case, I would suggest the CPC not wait and have a meeting and move forward to see if this could be a suggestion so we could do our business.

One of the things that we all know that when someone like Dave Gould or any members apply for grants, they want to know that moneys are there that will match it or meet the criteria for what the grant is. And I think having to wait that amount of time would be detrimental to that. And the Jenney Pond project is a substantial amount of money that we could potentially lose. So, that’s my suggestion. Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Just a point of order. I believe if we are to table since we have a motion and a second rather than go to vote that Selectman Mahoney would need to withdraw, temporarily withdraw it until that reconsideration point.

John Mahoney:

Madam Chair, what is that schedule? Are we meeting next week?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

John Mahoney:

Okay. I withdraw my motion and hopefully the Town Manager will get the accurate answer. And if it falls one way, you can put it on as an agenda item next week.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Quintal has a question from Mr. Gould, please, if you would be so kind.

Dick Quintal:

Hi, David! Are you in charge of Jenney Pond?

David Gould:

I am.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Will this have any effect on anything that you need to do there?

David Gould:

So, right now, what we’re doing is hopefully we’ll hear back from the federal funding that we’ve requested for the other half of that. Hopefully, we hear about that sometime in the spring. That’s the timetable that we’ve been given. Those do tend to fluctuate. Hopefully, that comes about. Now, we do have some timelines that we have to adhere to for permitting. So, if we receive that funding in the spring, we would put it out to bid in the summer and we would be obligated to do that construction in the winter based on time of year restrictions for permits. So, that’s kind of our timeline. So, yeah.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, what? Yeah, like you need the money at the spring town meeting because if you only have the federal commitment, you can’t unless you have the local commitment, you can’t actually go out to bed we would need to until after October.

David Gould:

We could go to bid. We couldn’t award a contract without the full amount of financing in hand. So, both the federal funding and the town share would need to be there when we award a contract. So, that would be in the summer time.

Harry Helm:

Do you feel it would be detrimental to the project for you to basically tell people, “We’re going out to bid now but we won’t be awarding this until maybe beginning in November?”

Lynne Barrett:

If I could just interject for a second? So, we already have a vote from town meeting for the CPC share. We voted to authorize to borrow for the whole thing based on David getting the grant and then in like the following year we were going to use available funds to pay off that CPC share.

[0:35:07]

Lynne Barrett:

So, it won’t restrict David from being able to award a contract. It’s just that next, when we go to town meeting, whenever we do either in the spring or in the fall for the annual that we would have those CPC funds available to actually pay in cash instead of borrowing any money for the CPC match. That’s all.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

I’m good.

Betty Cavacco:

You’re good. So, we have you withdrew and who seconded?

Charlie Bletzer:

I withdraw my second.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. And we will table this conversation till next week. Great. Thank you.

John Mahoney:

Madam Chair?

Betty Cavacco:

Yup? Oh.

Jan Rushforth:

Thank you very much. This all started with signages when my husband, Selectman Rushforth, who’s now passed, really felt this was important for the town. And Dickie might remember, he had two words: communication and cooperation. That’s what this is about. I have to say I’m very proud of this board tonight and the CPC and the new town manager, so far, because what I heard and saw was communication and cooperation to do the best for the Town of Plymouth. And I thank you all very, very much. He’s very proud of you tonight.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Madam Chair, this is through to the Town Manager. Derek, we have a summit coming up with the CPC. I think it’s a week from Thursday at 7:00 p.m. You–

Derek Brindisi:

That’s correct.

John Mahoney:

You’re on the agenda. I hope that’s confirmed. You coming in with a delegation?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, it’s my intention to ask our Finance Director, David Gould, Director of Environmental Affairs, our Assistant Town manager and Kelly McElreath, our Town Clerk all accompany me so that we can go over a number of different items for CPC.

John Mahoney:

Okay. I think Ms. Rushforth hit the nail on the head and there needs to be a communication reset because the CPC coming out of this meeting can be bigger, stronger and streamlined and do more for the community. I would add when you talk about the delegation and how it impacts and interacts with the Community Preservation Committee, I think Mr. DeBlasio, if he’s bored and has nothing to do next Thursday night and he wants to spend a couple of hours with a pretty talented group of people, I would extend the invitation to him. But ultimately, that’s your call. I would request through the chair that this be properly noted under the Open Meeting Law or as a Select Board meeting so we can all attend the summit. You don’t have to go Betty but you know? And then I would certainly advocate that you get together with the chair of the CPC to talk about the forum. So, up until a few months ago, the meetings were being held in this building or the room in the 1820. And when you get over to the Arts Center, it’s kind of like an echo chamber. And even if you only have six to eight people in the room, if two people are talking, you can’t understand anything that’s going on. So, I just want to make sure it’s a comfortable forum, enough seats and there could be 20 30 or more people at this event. So, I just want to make sure that we’re prepared for that. Okay? And everybody can be there comfortably and not standing on up against the walls.

Betty Cavacco:

Is there something wrong with this room?

Derek Brindisi:

We can just check the availability. Anthony, I’m looking at Anthony to check the availability.

Anthony Senesi:

I don’t see any conflicts. January 12th?

Derek Brindisi:

Right.

Anthony Senesi:

Yeah, no conflict.

John Mahoney:

And the other benefit, if you ended up having it in here, PAC Television might be able to televise it.

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right.

Betty Cavacco:

The only issue–not an issue, but question, I don’t believe that we could call that a Selectman’s Meeting.

Derek Brindisi:

No. It’d be a CPC meeting, yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Anything else from the board on this subject? All right. Let’s get on to our next. Fiscal Year 2024 Select Board Budget. Town Manager Mr. Brindisi.

Derek Brindisi:

So, this should be quick.

[0:40:00]

Derek Brindisi:

This is the same slide deck that we discussed a couple weeks back when we presented the initial budget. What you’ll see here and we had sent–our Finance Director Lynne Barrett had sent out what is being presented to you this evening. She sent you the full report. There’s only a couple of slight changes. And so, there’s an increase in this revenue amount of $9,353,87. We had to increase that number by the amount of $27,135. You can see that the town departments and school budget more or less remain the same. These are all the same slides you saw two weeks ago. So, this is the recommended general fund budget of a $278,297,268, which represents an increase of the $9.3 million. So, as you can tell from the far column to the right, the overall budget increased by 3.5%.

What you don’t see on this slide deck, these are all the slides, what you don’t see on the slide deck is that the total budgeted amount which includes the enterprise account is $284,733,611 which represents again a 3.5% increase. So, again, not any significant changes since the initial presentation other than changing the budget amount by $27,135, which we offset on the revenue side. So, pending any questions or any changes, I’d ask for a motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Any questions for Mr. Brindisi? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

The budget that we have here and that we’re looking at includes the school operating budget, correct? Okay. Now, it was my understanding that the town operating budget was lowered by a certain amount per agreement and wasn’t the school operating budget, they were to be lowered as well? And did they lower it?

Derek Brindisi:

So, the last time we had met and that was prior to this initial budget presentation, which I think was December 13th, off the top of my head. We hadn’t met with the school department to discuss a deficit of $1.6 million. During that discussion, we talked about using a typical 65/35 percent split, which is what the operating budget is of the school compared to the town. We thought it was more collaborative to do a 50/50 split and then each side assume 800,000 budget deficit. That number is assumed in the budget on the town side, which is being proposed to you today. Was still recommending that on the school side, but as you have all read in the OCM that the school committee has continued to maintain their original budgeted amount which is $800,000 more than what is being presented to you this evening.

Harry Helm:

So, we’re being–I see that a vote is anticipated and there was a motion that was asked for we’re being asked to vote on something that isn’t actually set in stone?

Derek Brindisi:

So, your authority is to recommend a budget to A&F. And then through the A&F budget subcommittees, in this situation, the school department is going to meet with the school subcommittee and would have to argue or make a compelling case to A&F to insert an additional $800,000 into the budget. So, your budget recommendation today could be lots of things, could be what I’m recommending–

Harry Helm:

So, in other words, we’re basically going to sort of just not pay attention to what we’ve read in the OCM and go forward with this and then they can deal with the Advisory and Finance Committee?

Derek Brindisi:

If that’s what the majority of the board votes, yes.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Sounds like a plan.

Betty Cavacco:

Is there any other questions? John?

John Mahoney:

Comments still. Lynne, we still got 2 million for using unused levy capacity? We’re still holding a two million, which will leave us at roughly 5 million give or take and there’s no one-time revenues, correct? Like–

[0:45:08]

Derek Brindisi:

Right.

John Mahoney:

–which compounded the current situation from something that happened a year or two ago. So, I just wanted to comment on, I took a day off from work last week to participate in this room at Capital Outlay and I had never had that honor before. So, I think I got lucky because Mr. brindisi and Lynne put together a different process this year. And instead of, and I’m using round numbers here, so instead of department heads coming in with $10 million of requests and it was only 5 million available, so you had to numerically and “maybe objectively” rank all the requests knowing that 5 million will get approved and 5 million wouldn’t.

There was a new approach this year and the only thing that was presented was what the Finance Director said we could afford. So, that took a lot of pressure off the process. That was one of the things I wanted to say, but the other takeaway in what I saw last week and I’m telling this to everybody in the community but especially the gentleman to my left because he’s from North Plymouth and I know we all get sentimentally attached to certain things. And I grew up in another town and they just leveled my elementary school, and I got permission to go on site and take 50 bricks, which I did but I was kind of caught off got a little by Adam and the woman from the school department. I forget her name, Derek.

Derek Brindisi:

Christina.

John Mahoney:

So, they presented the requests and I just wanted everyone to know that they’re already looking at Cold Spring and Hedge. With respect, they’re only asking for improvements that just guarantee safety. They’re not looking at anything else in anticipation of something happening.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah, a new school.

John Mahoney:

Right, 48 years from now.

Dick Quintal:

To save the whole story.

John Mahoney:

I just wanted to let you know that. And are we having a joint meeting coming up soon with the school committee?

Betty Cavacco:

On the 10th. Correct.

John Mahoney:

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Derek Brindisi:

if I could just address Selectman Mahoney’s comment. He asked our Finance Director about excess capacity. So, as Lynne confirmed, we’re recommending to use $2 million of excess capacity. To Selectman Helm’s point about schools, if the schools were able to make a compelling case to reinsert $800,000 into this operating budget, that excess capacity would go to $2.8 million. So, in order to fund what they think they need would come from the excess levy capacity.

Betty Cavacco:

So, I understand that we were trying to be–I’m kind of–

Harry Helm:

Fiscally responsible.

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah, there you go. Fiscally responsible and trying to share the burden, but quite frankly, it’s very bothersome to me although I support the schools 100%, but I also support the town 100%. So, it’s very bothersome to me that we have taken more than our share to cut our services. And the school department has decided not to. So, quite honestly, I’d like to stay at the 65/35 although it may be too late for that, but the town shouldn’t always have to have the most burden and have our services suffer more than–I mean, we’re all in this together so we might as well share the pain, as far as I’m concerned. But that’s 35%, we wouldn’t have to make all the cuts that we made but now, we do because we are trying to be the good guys and share in the total cuts, so. Harry?

Harry Helm:

It’s not my intention to add length to what is already going to be a lengthy meeting but by your leave through Madam Chair, I’d like to ask if our Finance Director and our Town Manager could explain to the people assembled and watching on TV once again the importance of excess levy capacity to them as taxpayers. And also, put into concept that basically because the school committee has decided to seems to appears to have decided to go ahead and keep their budget the way it is, that extra almost an additional third take on a reduction of the excess levy capacity, how impactful is that? And why is it important? Why is excess levy capacity important?

[0:50:30]

Derek Brindisi:

I’ll turn this one over to Lynne.

Lynne Barrett:

So, I just want to be clear because we’ve been throwing a lot of numbers around tonight. So, we just set our tax rate for Fiscal 23. The excess levy capacity on that tax rate was 9.2 million. So, we’re recommending to use 2 million in the Fiscal ‘24 budget. So, that would leave approximately 7.2 million of excess levy capacity. If the schools get their requested budget, that would be another 800,000 of excess levy capacity that would have to be used. And what excess levy capacity is, is it is the ability for the town to tax up to our levy. An in Plymouth’s case, because of the nuclear power plant and growth that we’ve had over the years, we have this sort of gap where we don’t have to tax up to the levy. We have this excess. We have this room to sort of grow and it’s like a catch-22. It’s good when you need it and then it’s bad when you have it because you keep eating away at it. And once you reach your levy capacity, you cannot go over that levy capacity unless you go for an override. So, to use excess levy capacity, it’s like going for an override but you don’t have to go to the ballot for it.

So, we would be taxing people for that extra. There are many cities and towns left in Massachusetts that don’t have the ability to go over their levy limit. They’re at their levy limit. And for example, if we had a really bad year of snow and ice and we had a million-dollar deficit that we had to raise that following year in our tax rate, if you’re at your levy limit, you already have to cut your budget a million dollars because you have to raise that snow and ice deficit. So, it’s very important to sort of have that cushion so that for those types of things that happen, you’re able to sort of land on your feet. But it’s concerning. I mean, we met with the board under prior management back in 2019. And in that presentation that we were just looking at recently prior to presenting to you, we sort of predicted that we’re going to start to have an issue in like Fiscal ‘24. We’re going to start to see that we keep eating away at this excess levy capacity. So, basically the cost of our budget is higher than the cost of the revenues that we’re able to increase every year. That two and a half, the new growth, state aid and local receipts. We have to live within. So, basically, if you took the 2 million off of the 9.3, we have to live with $7.3 million worth of revenue. But our budget, as you see, is increasing 9.4 million and that doesn’t include the school’s 800,000. So, it’s concerning and it’s quite a challenge. You know what I mean? We want to make sure that we don’t eat away at it.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Thank you for that explanation. Mr. Lydon?

Steve Lydon:

Steve Lydon. I absolutely agree with the Chair. Every time that the school is asked to cut their budget, they never seem to want to cooperate. We have a hiring freeze. We have jobs that are not going to be able to get filled, which probably might end up being overtime because we can’t have these people because we can’t afford them. The only thing that we can do isn’t approve of the budget that we give the school committee. Once they get their money, we have no control over it. We don’t know what they do or where it goes. And we’re all in this together. We passed two new schools and I think they should be able to–800,000 out of their budget is not a hell of a lot really.

[0:55:05]

Steve Lydon:

Enrollment is down. And Mr. Mahoney was right. I sat to the Capital Outlay Committee and all the things they wanted was for safety. But if you look at all the other division heads that come in, they weren’t coming in for stuff they wanted, right? They’d like to have. It’s stuff they needed. And that might affect them and their money. And why should always the town and the taxpayers always seem to get the hit? I don’t think it’s fair. I think they should eat this share of the cost of running this town. They are part of this town and they have no problem coming in and asking for $30,000 for uniforms or things like that, and they always get it but they never want to give anything back. I’m sorry, but I support the schools but when it comes to this, I’m tired of them not giving anything back. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Steven reminded me of what I failed to mention earlier was that irrespective of where those things were ranked by the Capital Outlay Committee because what was only brought forth is what we could afford, everything that was presented to us the other day is going to town meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Ms. Davis?

Virginia Davis:

Good evening and happy New Year everyone. Jenny Davis, Precinct 4. I’m not here to argue anything but just to explain, if people had attended and most of us did, the tax form, it would explain why it costs so much for the school’s transportation, special needs, language. It’s not about frills, but I’m not here to argue just to remind people to understand and also, the school committee just as the town does really gives out. Before we go to town meeting, we get their brochure, I guess that’s what you’d call, it their report, and it spells out to the penny what the money spent on. That’s all. I’m not here to argue. I know it’s a huge burden that you have to vote and the school committee has to vote. It’s not easy. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Anyone else? Do we have a–oh, Mr. Quintal? You’re going to have to put that finger up a little bit higher so I can see it.

Dick Quintal:

I’m sorry. I’ll do my best. I have to say, Lynne, I was talking with Betty this morning. I had the same conversation that you basically just said about the budgets and the new growth and the tax rate and that’s an opportunity to say why I think it’s important as a town that we find an industrial zone, put a path forward or a master plan out, if you will, of how we meet this criterion. I know I sound like it all the time. Some people think all I want to do is cut the trees down. That’s not the case. The case is balance. And as far as the schools go, I’m not really going to comment on it. I think I’m elected as a town official to bring the town’s budget forward. We bring it forward and let the schools do their thing and it’s town meeting the job to decide from there.

Let’s just remember going back a couple years ago, we went to town meeting, we had our meeting. Well, were you on the board then, Betty? And we all agreed that we’re going in united. We got there and 1.9 million, Bango, right? And I was really upset with that at the time and I’ve gotten over it since, but I still remember it. So, I say we do our budget the way we can. We request, we ask and let each man go to town meeting to make the case and that’s what town meeting does to make the case. But you’re going to have these problems and they’re only going to get worse and they’re going to get worse until we have a plan where we can–I could go on here for an hour and it wouldn’t put you to sleep, believe me. There’s multi-hospitals that want to come to this community that can’t maybe pulled up stakes and left with good jobs because they can’t get water, because they can’t get this. I mean, this needs to be addressed. This is what I sit with every night, not every night but once a week or more, I sit and say, “How do we go about the fixes for the town?” When I say, “We,” we as a people, we as a community. This town has a lot of issues. We’ve addressed a lot, but we still have a lot to do. That’s why I haven’t taken all papers to run yet and I haven’t decided yet. To stop the whistling on the Facebook or wherever else it might be, when I decide I’ll let you all know.

[1:00:03]

Dick Quintal:

But these are the things I wonder about not being finished, in my mind. John brings up the school and Hedge School. John, even if they will–I kind of know where that’s going to go, I’m assuming, but it’s for them to say but I don’t think that I’ll be picking up bricks. I think there’s other–North Plymouth wants other things for that. They don’t want to be selling bricks. We did that already with Cordage. We don’t want to do it with Hedge. In fairness, I struck up with a Capital Outlay, I think it was last year about 2.5 million for Nathaniel Morton’s new roof, out of the blue. So, I try to build the relations with the school department and I don’t think this is the place to debate their budget. It’s their job. They do their stuff. We do us. That’s the way it is and that’s my–if you want to vote against it or takes them out of your budget then go right ahead but I don’t think we should get into the game. We have too much stuff to worry about, really. I mean–

Betty Cavacco:

Can we debate consolidation?

Dick Quintal:

I’d love to, but it’s going to start somewhere. A lot of things have got to start somewhere.

Betty Cavacco:

I have no problem supporting the town budget, because I know how hard our staff worked on it and this board as well with our recommendations. And like I said, I mean, I love the school. I love their teachers. I have kids–well, one kid in school now. So, I support the school 100%. I support our educators. We have some of the greatest educators that I’ve ever come across. So, I guess, that’s not the point of it but you’re right, it’s not us to debate and I have no problem supporting the town budget that we have set forward. Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

I move that we forward with the town budget recommendation.

Betty Cavacco:

Is there a second?

Dick Quintal:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? It’s unanimous. Thank you. The next is the agreement with Claremont.

Derek Brindisi:

Okay. So, what’s in front of you this evening is a development agreement with Claremont Development who has I think, many of you know, has proposed and been approved for a special permit through the ZBA for 19855+ units that would be for rental, for apartments, not condos. So, I want to go back a little bit in time. There’s a lot of misinformation that’s out there, and so I want to be able to try to correct some of that with facts.

These are the facts that brought us to why we’re having this conversation this evening. So, this past summer through the DPW Director, we were made aware of an Environmental Partners Report. So, Environmental Partners, so folks are aware, is an engineering firm that consults with the town. They had done an analysis of the northern and eastern pressure zones here in town. And part of their analysis is they looked at this issue called firm capacity. And so, you hear me talk a little bit about that tonight. So, firm capacity is simple. It’s to provide water service and fire protection during a demand period so like a drought, for example, with one of the town’s largest wells that are offline. So, they use that as kind of the definition to set the stage as to determine whether or not the town has sufficient water in order to support any development project.

And so, what they found this past summer is that using that firm capacity analysis, the West Plymouth pressure zone is in deficit by approximately 1 million gallons of water per day. It’s not in deficit today, because we’re not in a firm capacity environment but if we were, say next summer, in a drought with one of our well zones, we’d have a one-million-gallon deficit. So, just so folks are aware, the largest well in that pressure zone is the North Plymouth Well. It’s also fed by the Federal Furnace Well in the Darby Pond well.

So, I know folks want to criticize the Claremont Development. The Claremont Development represents of that one million gallons, 30,000 gallons. So, we have a water problem with or without Claremont. So, that’s a fact. With or without Claremont, we have a water problem that we have to contend with.

[1:05:00]

Derek Brindisi:

It’s an immediate problem. The Chief and DPW Director have concerns that if we don’t remedy this problem, we could have a public safety risk. So, in order to mitigate this problem, EP, Environmental Partners, they recommend that the town builds a booster station not because there’s a lack of water in our entire system both in both zones, but we have a problem with moving water from one zone to another zone. And the booster station will be able to do that, move water. So, this is where Claremont comes into this conversation.

So, again, during this analysis, the Planning Director told Claremont that their project can’t move forward through the ZBA until we have a solution to our water problem. So, no projects can move forward until we have a solution to this water problem. So, Claremont came to the table knowing that they wanted to continue with this potential development and they sat down at the town and we negotiated an agreement that in order for their project to move forward, they would be willing to build this booster station that EP recommends. We have two locations already pre-identified by the DPW where this booster station can be cited but in return and this is the development agreement, which is outlined in these three pages, the town, the Select Board must be willing to waive all connection fees and building permit fees. So, when we look at the total cost to building permit fees and connection fees, we’re looking at approximately $1.5 million, approximately.

Claremont believes the design and construction would cost them approximately $3 million. So, in this situation, it’s more or less a 50/50 split public-private partnership in order for Claremont to build a booster station to remedy this public safety hazard and provide water to all of the residents in West Plymouth not just Claremont. Now, if this development agreement doesn’t move forward, if the board doesn’t support us for whatever reason, then I will be asking the board to go to town meeting to request $4.5 million to build a booster station. $4.5 million is the town’s costs to building a booster station, $3 million is the private cost. They don’t have to pay prevailing wage and have to do a bid and things of that nature.

So, the other troubling spot on all this conversation, just today, a couple hours ago I was made aware that Ms. Meg Sheehan filed an appeal to the ZBA’s special permit issuance. This appeal could be held up in land court for upwards a year to two to three years if it moves forward. That appeal will kill this development agreement. There is no way Claremont’s going to build a booster station knowing that they’re going to sit in land call for the next two to three years. So, again, if that appeal moves forward, I’ll be going back to this board and to town meeting eventually asking for $4.5 million of the residents, rate payers of this community to fund a booster station that today can be solved by Claremont Development.

Pending any questions, that’s all I have.

Harry Helm:

So, if the concept of them basically paying whatever it is to alleviate us a $4.5 million expense, if the development agreement unravels, what stops Claremont if anything from doing exactly what several others including the Oasis have and I’m not sure if the walk was involved in that as declaring 40B, because I don’t believe water, the lack of water would be an issue in approval of a 40B. Are we possibly moving towards another 40B? You can’t talk for Claremont, but–

Derek Brindisi:

No. And I can say that in every conversation I’ve had with Claremont, they never once mentioned the fact that they have the ability to file for 40B. But as you know Selectman Helm, in Massachusetts, 40B is always out there. It’s always a threat. So, if this development agreement were to unravel, I think that is an option, that is a course of action that Claremont could choose to take. And as Lee Hartman has oftentimes educated us all that water is an excuse to not permit a 40B.

[1:10:20]

John Mahoney:

Which is a remarkable statement. That’s embarrassing. The state should be ashamed of themselves.

Charlie Bletzer:

I have a couple of questions probably town counsel, if he can answer it. Do you want to come up? First of all, I’d like to say that this is very concerning to me that we have an approved and spun through the boards. ZBA put many, many restrictions. I mean, I don’t know how many. I was there at that meeting and it went on and on and on, all the different restrictions to protect the environment. It’s a 55+ rental project by a reputable group that wants to own the project. They’re not going to just put it up, sell it and let somebody move in and be irresponsible. They’re going to own the project. There was a water issue that came up after they were–six months then they finally–so, it was–the board met to form a private-public agreement to fund this this booster pump. Okay? And it was going to save the taxpayers as you said 4.5 million at least that might be conserved.

So, now, we have and no disrespect, Meg and this is a question for you, Ms. Sheen doesn’t live in Plymouth, I don’t believe. She’s not a resident of Plymouth. So, does she have any standing to actually appeal or sue this project?

Michael Bergeron:

So, the plaintiffs are Plymouth residents on the suit that was filed today.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, she’s the legal rep?

Michael Bergeron:

She’s the legal representative, it’s my opinion. A fancy way around the issue here. And we were all looking at the place today.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, we believe and I do and I’m not afraid to say it that this is just a stall. This is a stall tactic to hopefully this group goes away. We lost the behavioral hospital, medical facility, we lost them, okay? Because of this. So, now we’re going to possibly lose this group. And who knows what’s going to happen with that property? If it’s going to be a 40B, what’s going to happen? So, how do we stop and I don’t want to call this a frivolous appeal, but I don’t see what merit they have here and where the grants. I know the open meeting complaints are not valid. Okay? Just like what Mr. Serkey did the same thing, and I’m not going to get into that. But how do we stop this? Every time a project comes in that a certain group and there’s actually a gentleman running for selectman behind all this. And how do we stop this group from stopping development? So, am I talking to you? I’m not talking to you, no. I’m talking to Town Counsel. So, I want to know how do we stop this group from these frivolous appeals as a stall tactic?

Michael Bergeron:

We were all addressing that today including counsel for Claremont. And I have to say, Claremont has been a partner in this despite what’s going on along the way. And the counsel for Claremont has reached to Dave Reservitz attorney for Plymouth as well as a prior relationship with them and everybody’s been working towards fixing this. But the suit that was filed today is not fixing this. I would invite all the Plymouth residents to look at the suit that was filed and really look at the facts as alleged. The facts that’s alleged in the suit do not match up with the facts that Town Manager has presented on this. We’re going to, in all likelihood, ask that the plaintiffs have to post a $50,000 bond on this with the court due to I would say the lack of merits within that suit. So, that’s what we’re pursuing.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, I just want to make sure on this–thank you, Attorney Bergeron, that the public knows that people as Harry says the people watching at home, the people there understand that if this appeal goes through and we lose this project, we’re all going to be paying at least $5 million, we’re going to be paying to get this booster, because we have to get it done. It’s an emergency.

Michael Bergeron:

Right. As I understand, the suit could cost the Plymouth residents $5 million.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, I just want everybody to realize at home or whatever that that’s, you know, if there’s any reporters here which there probably isn’t but that that’s what’s going to happen if this appeal goes through. And I’m hoping that Ms. Sheehan changes her mind and doesn’t waste taxpayer money.

[1:15:16]

Michael Bergeron:

Certainly, could be withdrawn.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yup, thank you.

Michael Bergeron:

Thank you.

Francis Mand:

Tonight, I have an opportunity to respond, which seemed to be a suggestion that I’m involved in this effort by Ms. Sheehan that you’re suggesting that who is running for select board that is behind this?

Charlie Bletzer:

Madam Chairman?

Betty Cavacco:

Yup.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’m not going to respond to you, okay? I have nothing to say to you. So–

Francis Mand:

Well, you just suggested–

Charlie Bletzer:

I have nothing to say to you.

Francis Mand:

Well, I have something to say. First of all, right now, you made this into a political argument.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mand, we’re discussing the Claremont project and not–there are other people in this audience that are running for Selectman. You’re not the only one.

Francis Mand:

There are people that have taken out papers that Mr. Bletzer is saying is behind this effort?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, there are. Well, we don’t know that.

Francis Mand:

Yeah, we don’t know that. This is the kind of lack of transparency–

Betty Cavacco:

No, the transparency is that you’re posting things on social media that if you didn’t have misinformation, you have no information at all.

Francis Mand:

I thought we were talking about what’s going on right here, right now. Now, you’re talking about social media.

Betty Cavacco:

Right here, right now, the things that you are posting is not factual. You heard from the–

Francis Mand:

I tell you what, I’m also a member of the Planning Board and I was here interested in this discussion because I was disappointed that as a member of the Planning Board, I didn’t have information on this deficit, this water deficit in time to truly give an objective analysis and order of conditions suggested to the Board of Appeals as is the duty of the Planning Board.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, then, maybe you should take that up with the Planning Board.

Francis Mand:

Well, I’m taking it up with you right now because you’re making a deal with Claremont, you’re approving tonight. That’s what’s on the agenda, to approve a deal with Claremont tonight.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct.

Francis Mand:

To be able to adjust for this surprise to the Planning Board and other boards that there was a deficit in the water that should have been addressed before this came before us, should have been addressed before Claremont came before us, should have been addressed before many of these developments came before us. And as someone stated tonight as well, there are conservation measures that don’t cost $4.5 million dollars that should be addressed concretely as well. There are many other ways to approach this. And I’m sitting here as a citizen of this community, as an engaged citizen of this community. And I hear Mr. Bletzer making a veiled attack on me because I’m running for Select Board and behind this, which is a lot a bull and the typical kind of stuff I expect to see during this election, I’m sad to say. Thank you very much.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Lydon?

Steve Lydon:

Steve Lydon again. I’m totally confused. Mr. Mand just said about a water deficit. I was told we didn’t have a water deficit. I heard the problem was that the people in North Plymouth do not have enough pressure there and that when there’s a drought–

Betty Cavacco:

West Plymouth.

Steve Lydon:

West Plymouth, I’m sorry. When there’s a drought, they don’t have enough water pressure to put out fires, to provide water and that’s the problem. And the problem is that we need this pump station to get the water that we have because there’s no deficit from what I’ve been told by the head of the division of the water department. And he says the problem is not we don’t have enough water. The problem is we don’t have the pressure or the means to get water to that part of our town.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct.

Steve Lydon:

And 40B, we all know what 40B can do to us. So, there’s a lot of things to look at when we decide about this but it’s not a water problem, it’s a water pressure problem and this pump station will take care of that pressure. Thank you.

Nick Sziritzi:

Madam Chairwoman, distinguished members of the board and town officials. My name is Nick Sziritzi [?].  I live at Sawyer’s Reach. And I followed some of the Planning Board meetings for the Hanover properties, the apartment. It’s for, I think, large apartment complexes and water was brought to the table at that time as a consideration for flyers and water flow and so forth.

[1:20:08]

Nick Sziritzi:

And then this next project came along, and I’m wondering what the wisdom was of the Planning Board to just let this project go ahead before this water situation was addressed. And it seems that we’re trying to correct something that there was a mistake happened. And the way it’s being delivered to us now is this is going to be an increase expense to the town for a situation that the town created. But being a businessman my whole life, I would just like to say this before you make your decision, that a temporary fix for anything is not always a good idea. It’s seldom is. That no matter what the situation is to do it once and to do it right for the long term no matter what it costs is going to be in the best interest of the town and the people in the area and future development and future hospitals that want to come in. If this goes 5 years, 10 years down the road, it’s going to cost 10 times as much. I want to commend the Town Manager on something. Where everything else is up 8.5, 9.5, 10.5%, the town budget is only up 3%. So, I think some people did some hard work to get to those numbers and I’m impressed with your work and whoever else worked with you on that.

So, I touched on two different subjects. But before you make your final vote, I hope you’ll consider the long-term. I’m a chef, what do I know? But I think the wiser thing is to just do it once and do it right. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Meg Sheehan:

Meg Sheehan. I’m here with my hat on this time as an attorney who has practiced environmental law in Massachusetts for 40 years. And I strongly resent the implications by town counsel that the lawsuit that I filed on behalf of eight residents of this town who abut this intense development inappropriately cited is somehow meritless. And I would not violate the rules of ethics by filing a meritless case. And I would just like to point out that as far as this development agreement, I urge you, Mr. Bletzer to read very carefully what the ZBA actually said because as the lawsuit makes clear and as the ZBA decision states very clearly, Claremont does not have to pay up to $2.5 million. They can back out at any time and they can simply pay the administrative fees, the municipal fees. That’s what the ZBA decision says.

In addition to that, 75% of the conditions in there, 75% of the conditions in the ZBA decision were delegated to Claremont to negotiate with the Town Manager and the town departments. That violates the very fundamental duties of the Zoning Board of Appeals to adjudicate zoning decisions. I’m not going to go into any further details about the complaint.

Charlie Bletzer:

Can I respond?

Meg Sheehan:

No. I hope you will read it very carefully.

Charlie Bletzer:

I have and I was there too and it’s very clear that if it’s not cost effective for them that they can back out in putting the booster pump in. If they don’t put the booster pump in, the project is dead. They will not get occupancy unless they do it.

Meg Sheehan:

That is not true.

Charlie Bletzer:

That’s true. You have it in front of you. You have it once you read it, because that was put into effect in case it went over the estimate. Okay? And then the project is dead and they won’t get an occupancy permit. This is just the misinformation that we’re talking about that gets out to these folks here. I was there at the meeting. I’ve read the agreement. We signed it. Okay? And so, if you want to check that. Derek, do you have that?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. I know exactly which section because we negotiated this section, in particular. And to Mr. Bletzer’s point that if the costs exceed what they are projecting so for example if it’s a $10 million booster station for whatever reason, they do have the ability to back out. It says simply right here. If Claremont does not contribute the pump funds, Claremont will be allowed to utilize whatever water connections are then available. In this case, there are none available. If any, they will be responsible for whatever connection fees, which would normally would have been waived, may be applicable to not exceed 1500 per unit. In addition, the town’s agreement to waive other fees as provided below shall be null and void.

[1:25:07]

Derek Brindisi:

So, Ms. Sheehan is correct, they can back out of this agreement. But it says they have to utilize other water connections. So, the only other possible water connection that they would have for an option is to build their own well. That’s the only other possibility they have.

Meg Sheehan:

That’s not true. Okay. I’m trying to read through the ZBA decision, which I have read very carefully. And it does say that they can simply pay municipal fees and that they can tie into the water system. I don’t know if you read the actual decision as opposed to what was said at the meeting, but I would suggest that with all of these vagaries that no one really knows and no one really understands that perhaps you wouldn’t want to vote on the development agreement, which the ZBA incorporated into its decision in a draft final form. So, when the ZBA voted, they had no development agreement because you hadn’t voted on it. So, this whole permit is, I dare say, a sham and a ruse and it was really concocted in order to evade the zoning prohibition against the use of mixed commerce areas for residential developments. That’s all I’ll say. You can read the complaint, but to suggest that the residents of this town don’t have a right under the zoning laws which explicitly give people a right to appeal a decision like this and to challenge a decision and to expect that the Zoning Board of Appeals is going to objectively and fairly administer the zoning laws and that they can’t go ahead and use their constitutional rights to appeal. I don’t know if you’ve ever read 40A, but it does give people a legal right to appeal a decision.

Charlie Bletzer:

These same folks that are appealing this decision live in a complex that’s part of our water problem, okay? I’ll leave it at that. Okay? I’m not going to say anymore–

Meg Sheehan:

Well, everyone in the town who drinks water is part of the water problem. Excuse me, everyone who drinks.

Charlie Bletzer:

We’re trying to fix this problem and we get a group that’s going to pay for a booster. It’s a temporary fix, Mr. Sorensi [?] if it’s an emergency. But we need to build a well and you’ll be hearing about that soon. But this is just an emergency situation that we get a group that’s going to pay. It’s going to save us 4.5 million for a temporary fix until we can get a well built.

Meg Sheehan:

Well, isn’t that the whole issue that you did temporary fix at the walk and a temporary fix at Oasis?

Charlie Bletzer:

I had nothing to do with that.

Meg Sheehan:

This is the third temporary fix, okay?

Charlie Bletzer:

I had nothing to do with that. I know nothing about that.

Meg Sheehan:

Well, I’m saying that this is the third Environmental Partners report that told the town they don’t have the firm capacity, and this is another essentially short-term.

Charlie Bletzer:

It’s before me. I can’t respond to that.

Meg Sheehan:

Well, you are dealing with a problem as a Selectman and you should be looking at it holistically, may I suggest, and look at the water conservation measures that were brought before you a couple of meetings ago that could for very short money address some of these concerns.

Charlie Bletzer:

Quite frankly, there’s a lot of projects. Colony Place being one, that should have built the well or put money aside for this that is in the hotels that went in there, all those developments, okay? But I don’t want to get into that. I don’t want to debate that tonight. This project, I just hope that you don’t delay it. I want them to go through. I want them to pay for this booster pump because we need to get this done.

Meg Sheehan:

Well, you might also want to look at what the zoning law actually says in terms of granting a special permit and what the height restrictions are, and what the density requirements are, and what the water overlay district says. This project is located in the Zone 2 of the North Plymouth drinking water well, which overlaps with Kingston’s drinking water well. You have a drinking water well in North Plymouth that’s contaminated and is being treated and is contaminated with PFAS. Don’t know if you know what those are. Okay. Well, that’s something to be addressed. So, why not make a holistic approach to this and at least require this developer to test and have baseline testing and to also test for PFAS. It is not. There is no baseline testing in that Zoning Board of Appeals decision.

Derek Brindisi:

We don’t have any wells that are positive for PFAS, that exceed the action levels. We have no wells that–

Meg Sheehan:

Currently, but those action levels–

Derek Brindisi:

But you can’t say that, Meg. That scares people and you tell people there’s PFAS in their water. That’s not a factual statement. That’s wrong. We did not have any wells that exceed the action levels of PFAS.

Meg Sheehan:

Okay. The current action levels, I will totally agree with you. EPAs action levels that are being adopted by the state are going to be zero. So, if you want to ignore the problem and pump more water and pump harder on these wells and possibly draw in more PFAs from all the storm water runoff of the 60 acres of the development that is going to be part of this whole thing that is not even being addressed.

[1:30:18]

Meg Sheehan:

Just to clarify this project is being built and proposed on a lot that has not even been subdivided. So, this is an illegal lot. There’s no lot 5A. It’s two lots currently that are going to be reconfigured into three sections, Phase 1, 198 units, Phase 2 another 150 or something and then they are going to reconfigure the existing stormwater system for the entire Colony Place of 60 acres. That’s all being segmented. It all should be addressed together under one zoning permit. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Derek, has the board been provided with a copy of Ms. Sheehan’s complaint? Do we have that yet?

Derek Brindisi:

Not to my knowledge, no. Again, we received like around 4:00 p.m.

John Mahoney:

And does the board have a copy of the official ZBA with the document that she was just referencing?

Derek Brindisi:

I don’t know. But I can get those if you–

John Mahoney:

I think the board would like those two documents for reading material.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. We can send those both along.

John Mahoney:

And then this next agenda item, it says Plymouth Development*, that’s an overall development discussion? Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

Sure. Hold on. There’s one more person.

Katherine Harrelson:

Thank you. My name is Katherine Harrelson. I am a member of Community Land and Water Coalition, located at 158 Center Hill Road in Plymouth. Growing up, I was a third-generation summer resident of Wareham, so I’m very familiar with this area even though I no longer live here. I have 18 years’ experience in the environmental industry. And I speak here tonight as a representative of the environmental community.

First of all, I would like to address comments made by–excuse me, I’m not familiar with your name.

Derek Brindisi:

Derek.

Katherine Harrelson:

Derek. Made by Derek that there’s misinformation being circulated around amongst the public and I feel that this is a misleading statement. The public is very well-informed on this issue. The Environmental Partners report that came out in October of 2022 was explicit and very detailed in addressing exactly what’s going on in Western Plymouth in regards to the three wells that supply it, the problems with the north Plymouth well and the issue of firm capacity. These are what we would like to address here tonight, and this is what’s going on in the Town of Plymouth.

The issue that I have after reading the documents and doing research on this issue is the manner in which this decision was made. It was not made publicly. It was not made with public involvement and it was not made with a public participation process. The development deal with Claremont took place on November 15th behind closed doors. This was a substantiative deal with significant ramifications. There was a public hearing at the ZBA on November 16th of the very next night at which I was present, at which the deal was only alluded to and in vague terms. The deal wasn’t even written down on paper.

November 16th was in fact the last public hearing on the Claremont Development. The public had no time to respond to this whatsoever. I personally feel as though this deal has significant ramifications for the way that Plymouth handles its water issues in the future. What we have here is we have choices in front of us. I believe it was around December 12th that the Water Conservation Committee presented its findings of a two-year study to the Select Board in which the findings were not taken up by the Select Board. I think that what has happened is that development and extraction of natural resources has gotten us to this point in Plymouth’s history where we now have water issues. We are leaving the point in Massachusetts history where we can be blasé about water issues and we are entering into the period where we are aware that if we don’t take conservative actions about our natural resources, we will have public water supply issues on our hands in the future. We have choices in front of us. They were presented to you to this committee on December 12th. And I would like to call for another Environmental Partner study to what would happen in the Western Plymouth pressure zone if in fact the 15-year recommendations of the Water Conservation Committee were taken up instead of drilling a new well in Eastern Plymouth. Thank you.

[1:35:16]

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

So, I just want to rebuttal to the point on the December 12th. The volunteer committee came in. Mr. Cody and others did an extraordinary job over the course of the last two years to come in, present. They had the three recommendations. You’re correct. The board didn’t take action that night but that doesn’t mean that the board’s not going to take action. Okay? And one of the big pieces of that puzzle was that the Town Manager, maybe the Finance Director and others were going to put together and look at putting this sample rate structure together because one of the recommendations was going after peak demand times, summertime use. So, that was one of it. We wanted time to allow them to get that piece of the puzzle done, that homework get done. And then the Town Manager would communicate that to the Chairwoman and then God willing in late January, February, March or whenever, that would be back on the agenda and we would deal with that one and the two other pieces the recommendations that were brought forth. So, that one. This is not a one-size-fits-all problem. You’re accurate in some of what you said but conservation is a big piece of the puzzle, but it’s not the only part of the puzzle. And I promise you and I know that Chairwoman Cavacco is not going to let that slip and gather dust on a shelf somewhere and five years from now we’re wondering what the heck happened.

Katherine Harrelson:

I would agree, but the Water Conservation Commission Committee finding specifically recommended against drilling new wells in Plymouth, and the study for a new well in Plymouth was potentially going to be part of this deal with Claremont. I didn’t see that language in the final development deal with Claremont, but it was mentioned at the ZBA hearing on November 16th. So, this development has implications for the future of another well in Plymouth, which goes against the conservation, which goes against conservation of water resources.

John Mahoney:

I’ll save further comment for the next agenda item.

Katherine Harrelson:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

And I don’t believe that was ever part of any discussions about Claremont and another well.

Derek Brindisi:

Again, Claremont Development, they require 30,000 gallons per day. We have a 1-million-gallon deficit. So, for me, it’s focusing on remedying this public safety problem first. And if Claremont benefits from that because of building the booster station then that’s what they agreed upon. I can say the DPW Director and EP have talked for years that at some point in West Plymouth, they will have to build a new well and I think Mr. Bletzer reflected on that. So, I don’t want anybody to walk away from tonight’s meeting saying that the booster station has solved all of our problems for the next 100 years in West Plymouth because that’s not the case. The booster station is probably a five-year fix that will provide redundancy as soon as a new well comes online. I mean, those are the facts.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Derek, correct me because I’m a little confused a little bit here with this booster station. A booster station is what moves water to different parts of the town. It’s not a well.

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? Do we have a motion?

Charlie Bletzer:

I make a motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we have a second?

Dick Quintal:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

I understand that it’s important to deal with this this agreement, but pursuant to the couple of items that Selectman Mahoney requested, I’d actually like to read those. I am in agreement with voting yes on this development agreement, but I think that because I like to see as much information as possible and I always have, I would like to see that information before I make a decision on this development agreement.

[1:40:07]

Harry Helm:

Although I have a tendency to understand even after reading it, I will likely agree with the agreement.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? Mr. Brindisi, do you think we could have that information by next week?

Derek Brindisi:

The rate analysis?

Betty Cavacco:

No. The paperwork.

Harry Helm:

The appeal and the ZBA.

Derek Brindisi:

You have the appeal in your inbox now. I have to ask Lee Hartman for the ZBA decision. I can get that.

Betty Cavacco:

So, can we put this on next week’s? We’ll table it for the vote and put this on next week’s agenda for a vote or do we–are there any time constraints? Are there any time constraints?

Derek Brindisi:

No, there are no time, no. Given the appeal, there are no time constraints at this time.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, Mr. Helm and I’d actually like to see it myself. I’m sure the rest of the board would as well. Do we have an issue with that?

Dick Quintal:

No. I have faith in our Town Manager.

Betty Cavacco:

I do, too. So, Mr. Bletzer, do you care to withdraw your motion?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. I’ll withdraw it until next week.

Betty Cavacco:

And Mr. Quintal will withdraw?

Dick Quintal:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

So, we’ll get this and please make this–

John Mahoney:

Yeah, I’ll make a motion to table this issue to a future date, which is Tuesday January 10th.

Harry Helm:

I second that motion.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor? Unanimous. And Derek, would you put that as the first order of business?

Derek Brindisi:

Absolutely. And Attorney Bergeron just brought to my attention. I was just reviewing the appeal. Exhibit 1 is the ZBA decision. So, you have it all.

Betty Cavacco:

Is it a lengthy document? Oh, okay.

Derek Brindisi:

It’s only 48 pages.

Anthony Senesi:

Excuse me, through the Chair.

Dick Quintal:

Betty, it’s 7:30. Let’s move on.

Betty Cavacco:

I was going to ask you to read it until the wet record but never mind.

Anthony Senesi:

Madam Chair, we have the joint budget meeting with the School Committee and also Advisory and Finance scheduled for 6:05 on January 10th.

Betty Cavacco:

Why don’t we start the meeting at 5:30? Okay. You’re welcome. The next is Plymouth Development and the reason why we put this on the agenda is because there have been a couple meetings out there. And Mr. Bolotin, you can’t hide behind Mr. Gould. And I know the board members have had several questions and I know Mr. Helm has been with you at these meetings. So, we kind of wanted to bring it to the forefront just to kind of explain to residents because everybody’s getting yielded a bunch of questions. So, I don’t know if you want to just give a brief explanation. I know that Mr. Quintal and Mr. Bletzer and actually all of us were concerned about economic development. But I know that has been something for those two select persons since they’ve been on the board. And actually, even before that. So, Mr. Bolotin. Thank you.

Steven Bolotin:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Steve Bolotin, Precinct 15. There has been to my knowledge, one meeting was held at the Center for Active Living with Select Board Member Helm. The purpose of the meeting was because as we have heard repeatedly, information gets bandied about in town, which may be correct, incorrect, partially correct and it leads to people having a lot of questions. But unlike the Select Board, the Planning Board and the ZBA don’t have a question time. There isn’t an opportunity for the public to come up and ask questions, and there’s a legitimate reason for that.

[1:45:00]

Steven Bolotin:

We are quasi-judicial boards and our statements have legal ramifications, so we don’t answer hypothetical questions. I felt and do feel that it is absolutely essential for the residents of Plymouth to have accurate information. To that end, I’ve made myself available to answer resident questions about development. And I have made it very clear anytime I have spoken, I speak personally on my own behalf, not on behalf of the Planning Board, not on behalf of the Select Board, not on behalf of any other board, commission, committee, employee or elected official of the town. Just me, here’s my two cents, here’s the information I have and here’s where I got it. And if you have questions, I’ll try and answer them. If I don’t have the information, I’ll try and get it for you and I’ll tell you exactly where I get it so you know whether or not it’s accurate. And that’s what I’m trying to do in town. Only because I think it’s essential. I think if nothing else the discussions we’ve had here tonight show how important it is that people have correct information when trying to come up with decisions, trying to understand what’s going on in development.

We keep hearing, you know, we’ve heard tonight, “Oh, the walk and the Oasis.” And well, they’re 40B. What does that mean? People have a misunderstanding as to what that means. How does it occur? What goes on? Why is the town letting this happen? The town doesn’t just let things happen. There’s laws, there’s rules, there’s regulations, there’s procedures. We follow them. If we follow them, there are certain outcomes that we have discretion over and certain outcomes we don’t. Just trying to explain to the residents why it is, what happens, happens and more to the point especially given what’s going on with our master plan aspirations trying to also get the input from the residents. Well, if this is what’s happening, what can we do about it? Well, here’s a couple of our options. Which way would you like to go? What do you think is important? It’s important for me to get that input as chair of the Master Plan Task Group just as other members of that task group are going out and doing the exact same thing in their select groups.

So, this was just merely an effort to A, provide information and B, receive information. But certainly, nothing is being said or done that says, “This is what will happen in Plymouth.” I don’t have that control. I’m just one citizen with a couple of board positions who’s trying to get the correct information out there.

Betty Cavacco:

Excellent.

Steven Bolotin:

But if the members of the Select Board have questions, I am happy to answer them.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

As the person who organized this discussion with Mr. Bolotin and myself and residents at the CAL, I feel that it’s incumbent upon me to speak. I didn’t realize that this agenda item was about that meeting or the two requests that we have for meetings of a similar sort in other parts of the town. The meeting was organized at the request of members of the CAL. Residents who are senior members of our community requested that this discussion take place. That is the genesis of it, but it speaks to something that Steve spoke to. I would say that the large majority of the residents of Plymouth are number one deeply concerned about the development in this town, its impact on our lifestyle, our taxes, our environment. They’re deeply concerned. Also, at the same time, from questions that I fielded not only at the CAL but in other areas and seeing some of the stuff blow by my eyes on Facebook, there is a great deal of lack of understanding of what processes actually control.

I’ve seen enough comments and heard enough comments and had enough directed to me whether it’s a private messages or text that when are you going to get to the bottom of who in town administration and government is making all the money that is allowing these developments to go forward? Okay. I mean, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this process works and a misunderstanding of the general concept as Steve pointed out.

[1:50:11]

Harry Helm:

The conversation is largely about explaining the ramifications of 40B for this town. Okay. And that I just felt the need to explain. This was not an attempt to promote an agenda item or anything. And also, every member of the community including other members of boards and there was Mr. Canty from the Finance Committee was there. There were others. Everybody’s welcome to attend these and chime in. And this is about transparency and this is about communication. And my feeling that the people of this town who are deeply concerned about development don’t understand why things are happening. So, anyway, I just felt the need to make that statement.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m deeply concerned about development as you well know.

Steven Bolotin:

And I would echo what Mr. Helm said, not only you are welcome to attend, are encouraged to attend. I welcome and encourage everybody to communicate with whomever they feel to get the information. If you have questions, ask the question. There is no such thing as a dumb question. There are some dumb answers but there is no such thing as a dumb question. It is critical that people get information and that’s why I’ve always been as clear, as transparent as I can be which is to say, this is the information I have and I’ll tell you exactly where I got it. You don’t have to guess whether or not I’m making it up, I’ll tell you where I got it. If I don’t have information, I’m not going to make it up. I’ll tell you I don’t have it and I’ll go get it for you. And I think that’s the important part. We’re just trying to be as many public servants as we can doing this to try and encourage really responsible development in this town. And the only way that can happen is with knowledgeable discussion.

Betty Cavacco:

The amount of misinformation is astounding. They think that the Select Board are the ones that approve all the building. We’re the ones, like you said, we’re making the money is from what some people are saying. It’s actually ridiculous.

Harry Helm:

Just real quickly and then you’re going to call on Charlie. This misinformation originates in misunderstanding, okay? It’s not a purposeful spreading of misinformation. It starts with misunderstanding and that is what Steve and I were attempting to do in a small way. We, like I said, we’ve had other requests is to go group by group and explain as best we can the realities of what is going on and what needs to happen in terms of not what we think needs to happen but citizen involvement in what needs to happen because of the type of government we have, which is all about citizen involvement. Anyway, I’ll shut up now.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry? I mean, Charlie, I’m sorry.

Charlie Bletzer:

Steve, I’d just like to commend you. Harry, yourself also, for providing a forum where people can get correct information and not misinformation and not propaganda. Okay? So, I commend you for doing this. We can have developments that’s smart, that works with the environmentalists. I mean, and that’s what you can explain to people. We should all be able to work together, the boards with the environmentalists, with the developers and come up with projects that will be good for the town. So, I’m glad you’re doing these forums and people can ask questions and they’re going to get the right answers or the correct answers, I should say.

Steven Bolotin:

I hope so. I think–

Charlie Bletzer:

And if you don’t have the answer, you’ll get back to them.

Steven Bolotin:

Yeah. I will get it. I think Mr. Quintal said the word that I’ve used many times before as well tonight, balance. The town needs to balance its development, and that means responsibility all around.

Charlie Bletzer:

We want quality of life, but we also need to keep our taxes stabilized, so we can all live here.

Steven Bolotin:

We need lots of things and we need to balance them in proportion to the desires of the residents of the town, and that’s ultimately what our master plan is going to be going forward on.

[1:55:05]

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Well, we have a few members of the Planning Board here. I want to reach out and ask that maybe we have a round table. I’m open for suggestions as to how we move forward in reaching these goals or areas of town we like to see develop and what kind of development we like. I know that’s a lot I just threw out there but I think it’s the missing link. There’s miscommunication between the boards. And I think we ‘ve cleaned some of that out and it would only help the master plan.

Steven Bolotin:

I think that’s absolutely correct and I understand that the chairs of the Planning Board and the Select Board have been in communication and are working to schedule a joint meeting something to come up soon so that we can do that. The Planning Board has its strategy meeting scheduled for the 11th of January itself. So, obviously, I welcome citizen participation in that. If people want to come and suggest to us where we think our efforts should lie in terms of true planning, we want to hear from the residents but we are going to be doing our strategizing and then we’re going to bring that to the Select Board and talk to you about how we can jointly move those ideas forward.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, one of the things that, like I said, I appreciate and I’m always joking with either you or him it’s like the Harry and Steve going on the road show. So, we might have to come up with a name.

Steven Bolotin:

Unfortunately, I think someone’s already suggested Matt and Jeff. And I think that was taken.

Betty Cavacco:                                                                                                                                     

Who’s Matt? But one of the things that I think especially this board recognizes sometimes that you can tell someone the actual facts of what’s going on and it just doesn’t matter because in their head that’s not their fact. So, I wish you the absolute best of luck because we’ve had to deal with that scenario several times. And honestly, it’s–I mean, who can lie? I can’t even remember what I had for breakfast, I couldn’t possibly remember if something was not factual.

Steven Bolotin:

Well, you can lead a horse to water as they say.

Betty Cavacco:

Right. Correct, you can.

Steven Bolotin:

That’s our goal to at least lead the horses to water.

Betty Cavacco:

Yes. I appreciate it and thank you for coming in and kind of setting the record straight so people know. And I do believe the road show is moving to the Little Red Schoolhouse.

Harry Helm:

Yes, on January 19th but I can’t remember the time of day.

Betty Cavacco:

January 19th.

Steven Bolotin:

More to come.

Betty Cavacco:

More to come? Great. Thank you so much.

Steven Bolotin:

Thank you, members.

Betty Cavacco:

Take care.

Anthony Senesi:

Madam Chair?

Betty Cavacco:

Oh, is there someone that needs–Ms. Kuehn? Go ahead. Oh, you’re muted.

Birgitta Kuehn:

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Yeah, my name is Birgitta Kuehn. And I am on the Planning Board. I’m not sure if this is redundant, because my Zoom cut out for a minute. But I have been advocating for the joint meeting between the Planning Board and the Select Board that is required in our charter on a yearly basis. I believe we have skipped a couple of years and I’m hoping that we can catch up with that, because what you have been discussing tonight particularly around development is of extreme interest of course to the Planning Board. That’s what we do. And being able to coordinate with the Select Board so that Mr. Bolotin has new and Mr. Helm has new and updated information is definitely what everyone on the Planning Board wishes will happen. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, you must have cut out when we were discussing that. Mr. Grandy and I have been in touch, and we are trying to set up a joint meeting.

Birgitta Kuehn:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Anyone else? All right. Mr. Brindisi, the Town Manager’s Report.

Derek Brindisi:

I’ll keep this quick. So, just talking about revenues. It was reported to me this morning that our hotel and motel taxes are up by 16% from the same time last year. So, that’s positive news that things are so trending in the positive direction.

[2:00:04]

Derek Brindisi:

And then our meals tax, which as you know we have a special act on how we use that meals tax, is up 3% from the same time last year as well. Certainly, not trending as well as hotel and motel revenues but still trending in the positive direction.

On the flip side of this, our marijuana excise that we received through the marijuana facilities is down by 50%. So, again, we theorize part of it is that there’s an oversaturation of these marijuana facilities not only in the town but it’s shown in the region, throughout the state. So, we’re starting to see a decrease in those revenues as compared to the same quarter last year. So, that is at the 3% excise tax that we’ve negotiated in agreement with.

I also want to bring to your attention that there’s been some changes in the state law regarding the marijuana impact fees. So, we’re still working with Town Counsel on what that really means to the town at this point, but I can tell you that the City of Boston has already given back about $1.5 million of impact fees. We’re expecting within the next year or so, we will have to no longer accept impact fees. So, again, we don’t budget for the impact fees. It normally falls to our bottom line and falls to free cash but again, we’ll see a difference in our free cash moving forward.

I want to also announce as of last week, we were notified that the town received a $2.5 million federal award for the wastewater treatment plant. This is for the new tertiary project. This is a large credit to engineering department, DPW and Tiffany Park who put this application together through Congressman Keating’s advocacy and Senator Markey’s advocacy, we were able to receive this $2.5 million.

And then two more items I just want to bring up that we’ve talked a lot about going online with our electronic e-permitting system through the Special Services Department. We’re expected to go live in less than 30 days. So, effective February 1st, homeowners, contractors and others can pull permits online. They no longer have to come to Town Hall to pull a permit. So, hopefully that’ll make the Town of Plymouth being a little bit more business friendly.

And last, I just want to mention that the Fire Chief brought to my attention today that again, maybe some of this has to do with development that the Fire Department has seen an increase by 22% in their call volume during the county at 22. That’s 22% increase, that substantial increase to the number of calls that they had to respond to this past year. So, we’ll continue to monitor that. Maybe it has to do with development, maybe some of it has to do with the fact that there weren’t as many calls during the Covid years and we’re just trying to get back to more of a realistic number. So more to come on that. Pending any questions, that’s all I have this evening.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone? John?

John Mahoney:

Derek, I don’t know if–you didn’t touch on it tonight. I don’t know if it was in the last meeting but the announcement that we became a green community.

Derek Brindisi:

Yes. I think I did mention at the last but we did receive a press release today. There was a joint by now outgoing Governor Baker that announced that Plymouth was one of four communities that received this green community certification. So, again, a lot of work with Patrick Farah, Mark Reil and others to submit that, and the Green Communities Committee as a whole to submit that application.

John Mahoney:

I think there was a couple of cracks at town meeting initially that didn’t get passed but eventually and you’re right, I think that Patrick Farah was the point person on that one. It took a few attempts but finally it got passed and I think the community first started working on that almost a decade ago. So, congratulations all the town employees that worked on that.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? Let’s see. Okay. Thanks Derek. Next is Select Board Open Discussion – New Business/ Letters and Old Business. Mr. Quintal? No? Anyone? Oh, Mr. Helm.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. I was just wondering, could we get an update and I don’t know maybe doesn’t have to wait till next week, the ice rink? Where do we stand on getting that put up or are we going to?

Derek Brindisi:

We have a meeting tomorrow with the DPW to have that conversation.

[2:05:03]

Derek Brindisi:

We actually had the conversation this morning, and there are questions as to what is the most optimal location. So, we’re going to discuss tomorrow where the DPW feels is a better location.

Betty Cavacco:

So, just so you know, Harry, I brought this up to Mr. Brindisi a couple weeks ago and it’s problematic, not any fault of Derek, that we every year and since I’ve been on the board every year, I’ve had to remind them about the skating rink. That should be automatic. It’s winter, the skating rink goes up. And this year, I’m even more concerned. Obviously, the weather pattern isn’t helping us at all. Briggs Field is still leveled as it was last year. The Fire Chief doesn’t feel that there’s any issue filling it like we did last year although it is my understanding that the DPW director does. But this should be on autopilot. And one of the things that I’m really concerned about is the Stephens Field project. We had discussions that there would have been the ability to put the skating rink in that project, and I have not heard anything regarding that because that would be the perfect central location for the entire town and it would have to be refrigerated, and we could still use the rink in little satellite areas. But that was the entire plan of having a community skating rink right from the get-go. And I don’t know what the Stephens Fields Design Committee has done as of recent. I know that it was something I discussed with the CPC, and I want to know if it’s possible to actually incorporate something like that because that is something that you could use year round because when they do a refrigerated rink, as you know if you go to Boston or any of those places, they pour a pad and that pad, you can use it as a patio, you can use it as different things and when it comes winter time, they put up walls and they flood it and it’s a skating rink and it’s refrigerated and it’s fabulous because who wouldn’t want to skate at the ocean? And originally, that was supposed to be part of the whole Winter Fest theme that the town wants to go towards, which is another discussion I would like to have because I think the Town of Plymouth needs to be the ones that do Winter Fest.

A couple years ago, it was $40,000. It’s probably up to $60,000 but the amount of revenue that it brought in for our meals and hotel tax well outweighed that. So, I don’t know if that’s something–if it’s too late for this warrant, if it can go on special or whatever it is but I think maybe have it as an agenda item. When does special close or has it already?

Derek Brindisi:

I can take a look to see when it closes.

Anthony Senesi:

It closes in the beginning of February.

John Mahoney:

Yeah. You got like the entire month of January.

Betty Cavacco:

So, let’s get that on an agenda so we as a board can discuss that, if that’s okay with you.

Derek Brindisi:

Oh, yeah. No, that’s fine. We’ll definitely going to have an agenda item while that special warrant is open so that board members can place articles on the special as well.

Betty Cavacco:

And when you go to your summit, CPC Summit, could you please bring up that skating rink option. And John, I don’t know if I’m going to be there or not but I think if it’s not in the plan, we need to put it in the plan.

Derek Brindisi:

I can tell you, it’s not in the plan so this is something we certainly can bring up.

John Mahoney:

So, in the CPC meetings that I’ve attended in the last seven months, the topic has never come up. I was in the basement of the Art Center, was that Derek December 8th?

Derek Brindisi:

Uh-hmm.

John Mahoney:

And it was probably 20 to 30 people in the room and the main point of that meeting was that Jonathan Beder, your DPW Director got up and asked for a little bit of leeway with respect to some of the aspects of the project. And I would say, Derek, correct me if I’m wrong, almost 90% of the discussion revolved around how many tennis courts, how many pickleball courts, the age-old discussion pickleball versus tennis.

[2:10:08]

John Mahoney:

But the committee ultimately voted unanimously to give Mr. Beder the option of reducing tennis courts from four to three, which would bring the cost like $200,000 less and there was a couple of other things that they signed off on, and I think that’s going out to bid in a few months or soon.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. They’re going to move to 100% design based upon that last vote.

John Mahoney:

Right. So, obviously, that’s going to be. The big question is what those bids come in at, but that variable that you are referring to, that was never mentioned.

Betty Cavacco:

It was mentioned when I was the CPC liaison, and I know that they were going to have the power capacity able to take a refrigerated system. Now, since I am no longer liaison and you sir are, I think that and I can call Bill myself.

John Mahoney:

I know that you have the ability to do that.

Betty Cavacco:

But it really is something that we’ve spoken of even when you and I were on the board before and we’ve had that conversation. And so, I don’t know why it just failed or no one addressed it again or–

John Mahoney:

I don’t know who was–Derek, was it Weston and Sampson who did the design?

Derek Brindisi:

I think it was–yeah, it was one of those engineering firms we use a lot.

John Mahoney:

I don’t know if they were asked to incorporate that into the design, Betty. And then of course the other variable is how much is it. So, I don’t know those things.

Betty Cavacco:

Right. And now, that we have that additional piece of land right on–

John Mahoney:

Sandwich.

Betty Cavacco:

Right. Perfect spot, so.

John Mahoney:

I hope to see you on the 12th.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Just to chime in on that. I don’t know really about putting that there on this. I don’t know how far they are but what I would like to ask to look at if we’re going to do it in the future is I know Duxbury and I think it’s Cohasset who have sports complexes. That’s the big new thing now. I think we’re going to put our efforts into that then we should really–I’m sure recreation is going to be part of that if I know those towns, but those are very wealthy towns. But I’d like to see what exactly they do they can get the numbers.

Betty Cavacco:

I have communicated with an organization regarding a sports complex. I think you and I discussed it. It was kind of flatlined for a little bit because of Covid and all that stuff. But I know Mr. Chandler actually made the connection for us. So, that’s something in there. They want to go gung-ho so maybe that’s another option that we can–

Dick Quintal:

We go big or go home.

Betty Cavacco:

Go big or go home. But anyone else? Okay. So, now, we have License and Administrative Notes. And I believe Mr. Bletzer has asked something regarding one of the notes.

Charlie Bletzer:

I had some questions I would have asked ahead of time but Lisa was off. So, I’m trying to figure out what’s going on. They’re trying to open up a pop-up beer tent is what it says, beer garden. I see on your license here, you’re using on your application you’re using 11 Main Street and that’s a vacant, that’s not a going business there. Is it?

Kenny Semeken:

Well, it’s still under construction. We’re paying for license renewal for three years so we’ve been issued the licensing from the town. We just haven’t opened because we don’t have a certificate of occupancy.

Charlie Bletzer:

And 35 Main Street is where you want to put this?

Kenny Semeken:

Right. So, our future location is partnered with Patty Cho from Kogi and she’s the new owner of 35 Main Street. She’s no intention of opening. Her plan for that building is to move Kogi into there, towards the end of her lease on Court Street. So, for the next six to nine months, that building’s going to remain idle. So, through the winter when there’s no one occupying it, it was a way for us to utilize the space where we have very limited.

[2:15:01]

Kenny Semeken:

We have six seats per our zoning on Howland Street. So, to have a spot that has 70+ capacity during the coldest months of the year when our business struggles in a building where she’s paying utilities and rent with no plans to open. It was kind of a win-win for both of us. There’s currently no licensing in that building, so we were looking to issue just to use that space no differently if we were trying to use any other venue within town. It just happens to be one that has been set up for a bar.

Charlie Bletzer:

See, that’s the problem I have with this proposal. Basically, you want to go into a vacant business in that downtown area, which is quite frankly saturated with licenses, liquor licenses. And don’t take this wrong, you run a great business, you got a great operation, your beer gardens I know you’re doing other places and you’re a good tourist attraction for the town having a brewery, and I’m probably the most pro-business guy on this board. I just have a problem with allowing somebody to come into the downtown saturated with liquor licenses and running a weekend operation for 30 days through March and arguably, the slowest days of the year for the downtown area. Being a pro-business guy, I don’t think it’s fair to the other license holders to let this happen. So, the people that pay into the sewer, the water, all those other things. And it’s not a reflection on you and I think you’re thinking out of the box, you’re very Innovative but if we do this, we’re going to set a precedent and what’s to stop the store down the street saying in the summer, “It’s slow downtown. My shop is slow. So, on the weekends, let’s get somebody to come in and do some One Day licenses on the weekend and we’ll do a beer garden and a store.” We’re setting a precedent for that. So, I’m very concerned and really, I’m not crazy about this idea. If you were if you were trying to get 30 One-day license in an area that had no licenses around there, there was a need for it, I’d be all for you and I’d give it to you in a heartbeat. I just want to be honest with you and upfront about how I feel, so.

Kenny Semeken:

Yeah, no problem. Yeah. I feel it’s an area that’s saturated with licenses as well as saturated with empty buildings. Ours is obviously one of them also. I think having the latitude within the One Day license, any business could do this. So, if a business was to say we want to have our art store wants to hold wine on the weekends, there’s nothing outside of the MGL that prevents them from doing that other than standing here and requesting the same thing.

Charlie Bletzer:

But we don’t have to approve that.

Kenny Semeken:

Understood but I’m just saying in terms of setting a precedent, that’s my only point is that there’s nothing outside. I’m not stretching any provision that’s already provided for in the MGL and through the ABCC. This is a building that has no licenses, so I couldn’t go into Patty’s other spot because–

Charlie Bletzer:

No, you can’t go into the license permit, I know. I understand.

Kenny Semeken:

Yeah. Oh, I know you understand that. Obviously.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, I understand all that. But my thing is just the precedent. I talked to a couple license holders who won’t publicly say anything but they weren’t happy about it. And you have a great reputation, I don’t want to destroy that.

Kenny Semeken:

No, I appreciate that and I’ll admit we didn’t necessarily advertise that we wanted to do this because we could see there’d be some concern about competition or other things but–

Charlie Bletzer:

That’s another problem too is nobody seemed to know about this and that’s a big problem. Normally, the abutters get notice, I think the license holders. And I’m not criticizing anybody but I think they should–

Kenny Semeken:                                                                                                  

We followed the process. There is no abutters notice requirement. We’ve given notice to the town. It’s been notified that we’re going to have this hearing here. And the reality is we’re not looking–I have nine people who look to me for income through the winter in a place where we can only hold 29 people based on the license the town has given us. I have the ability to triple that, to bring an income through the winter to keep those people with more money. It’s the best thing for my business. It’s a space that’s being unutilized downtown. Between there and the Spire Center, there’s seven open empty buildings.

Charlie Bletzer:

Well, you have one that’s open and I encourage you. Hopefully, you can get that pub in there that you want to do and get that going as soon as possible, so.

Kenny Semeken:

Understood. But I mean, it took 22 months to get Eversource to make our electric connection before we could even get the specifications to build our brew house. We’re pivoting. This is still like Covid for us. Like we’re still a struggling business trying to make do with what we’ve got and this was–honestly, I don’t think we’re doing anything outside by requesting this or requesting anything that’s–I mean, it’s Friday through Saturday.

[2:20:12]

Kenny Semeken:

It’s not permanent. I purposely didn’t put in for seven days a week.

Charlie Bletzer:

No. And that’s the other thing is you’re putting in for the best three days, which is when people, if anybody’s doing any business, it’s on Friday, Saturday, Sunday. And again, Kenny you’re thinking out of the box. I like your renovation.

Kenny Semeken:

I know, but it feels like you’re coming down on me for being someone who’s been proactive, because we need to survive on their own merit.

Charlie Bletzer:

No. I’m not coming down on you. I’m saying I think you’re innovative, but I got to think of the other licenses that I don’t think it’s fair to them. That’s just how I feel. And again, I know your operation and you guys have run a great operation, but I don’t think it’s fair to the other license holders that are around you. If you’re in the same position, I think you’d feel the same way. You’ll understand.

Kenny Semeken:

To a degree, but I’m not doing anything that any of them are not able to do also. And I feel sometimes that business in Plymouth needs to be a little more thoughtful.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, Kenny, that’s the thing, this could set a precedent that we could have all this happened all over the place. I know in Boston they’re have a problem with these one day these breweries with licenses, and I don’t want to have that problem. So, anyway, that’s how I feel.

Kenny Semeken:

I appreciate the debate. I think the Boston example a lot of it is driven through MRA, and the restaurants and the MRA could also apply for these licenses. There’s nothing specific to this about breweries. We’re using what’s legally available to us to try to expand our business.

Charlie Bletzer:

I know. I’m not saying you’re not. And again, there’s five people here. I’m just stating how I feel.

Kenny Semeken:

I appreciate that.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’m honest and that’s how I feel about this.

Kenny Semeken:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Kenny, what’s the status with 11 Court?

Kenny Semeken:                                                    

So, we’re on our third general contractor. We just finally got the electrical connections. As I mentioned after two years of fighting with Eversource. We have the final quotes in to complete the space, tap rooms completed except for the sprinklers which was the last piece. We’ve had numerous meetings with the fire department and the building department. So, we will plan forward and the quotes to finish the space but it’s not going to happen before May or June. So, we’re just looking for a way to scrape by while we’ve been living paying rent on a building for 38 months that we haven’t been able to produce any income from.

John Mahoney:

So, in a perfect world, you’re going to open up sometime this summer?

Kenny Semeken:

This summer, yeah.

John Mahoney:

Okay. So, 35 Main, that building there where you want to put in these–what is it 30 or 35 temporary?

Kenny Semeken:

Yeah, it was 10 weekends.

John Mahoney:

30 One Day Wine and Malt Licenses.

Kenny Semeken:

Basically, we just want to move our tap room from Howland Street on those three days, we just want to operate from a larger space where we’re not constrained by the 29.

John Mahoney:

So, for those three days or those 30 days, Howland Street will be closed?

Kenny Semeken:

Correct.

John Mahoney:

You’re just going to shift your entire operation over there?

Kenny Semeken:

Correct. Otherwise, I’d have to double staff and if I have a more convenient, warmer, larger space downtown, we would not expect people to also want to do.

John Mahoney:

So, what are the hours you’re going to have open on Friday, Saturday and Sunday?

Kenny Semeken:

I mean, right now, we operate from noon to 10 on those days. So, that’s what we’re talking about with it.

John Mahoney:

Are you going to ask for a food Common Vic?

Kenny Semeken:

At the moment, no. Actually, no. No, we’re not going to ask for it all though.

John Mahoney:

Okay. And that place is ready for you to go in for the 30 dates?

Kenny Semeken:

Yeah. So, as I mentioned, Patty is our partner on the new space. She’s running the kitchen in 11 Main Street. So, when she bought it, I actually reached out to the previous owners because our former taproom manager owned Roll Street Tavern, so I’d asked him for, “Hey, what are you guys doing with that space?” I knew they owned the building. He said it’s being sold. I could put two and two together. I waited, talked to Patty. Patty said, “We’re not going to do anything with that until the end of the year.” So, I’m helping her break even on her utilities, keep the place heated, paying towards her rent while it’s empty.

John Mahoney:

So, again, just echoing on what Charlie said, I certainly appreciate your thinking outside the box. I just want to let you know that in the past, on the waterfront and down it and I can go to the Pine Hills Beer Garden, those are all One Day Licenses. Specifically, I can reference a water up front restaurant where there ended up being unforeseen consequences in certain neighborhoods and they thought that the One Day Liquor License was kind of circumventing what the intent was of that. It’s not like the Hedge House having a–what is it called? Oktoberfest or something for that effect and they’re trying to raise money over the course of one day four or eight hours on a Sunday. So, that’s my concern but you’re up there on Main Street, I don’t think you’re going to negatively impact parking but I’ve seen it happen in the past because people take exception to maybe this kind of like a circumvention of the–

[2:25:06]

Kenny Semeken:

Wouldn’t it be great if we had too many people come to Plymouth during February?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure would.

John Mahoney:

Wouldn’t it be great if it was like the old days and we could count on some weather under 32 degrees for a while? That’s what my point is I just I’ve seen it happen in the past, people unhappy with “circumvention” of what has been normally done.

Betty Cavacco:

So, is there anyone else that wants to–any board members? Go ahead, Mr. Quintal.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah. So, just so I got this right, you’re actually going to operate in the former restaurant Roll Street Tavern for the 30 days, Friday, Saturday, Sunday? So, you’re really moving into a restaurant? Pop up tent to me is you put up a tent and you got a heat if it’s cold and you take it down.

Kenny Semeken:

Oh, I never mentioned a tent. I’m just using the latitude with the One Day License.

Dick Quintal:

So, you’re moving into a restaurant, that’s what it was. All right. Okay.

Kenny Semeken:

It’s currently vacant building that used to be a restaurant.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. And this is just on the weekend dates. The problem I have with this is not what you’re trying to do and I really understand it, but I think as a town, we shouldn’t set a precedence for I mean, where do we draw a line? To give you an example, I have a warehouse. I’m going to open it up, I’m going to do a pop-up beer garden. I’m going to take Friday, Saturday, Sundays. I’ll probably get a couple hundred people in there. I mean, I could make a barrel of money too and I struggle in the winter just like everyone else does. So, I do hear that but I think it’s unfair to all your neighbors, if you will, on that street that have to get health inspections, have to have fire inspections, safety, pay their dues, pay their licenses and their insurances and their taxes. I mean, I just–and I don’t know did I hear you say having no food because I thought with alcohol, you had to have food.

Kenny Semeken:

We don’t. I said we weren’t getting a Common Vic because we don’t intend to run it as a restaurant, but we could bring in food vendors.

Dick Quintal:

Well, I thought to serve alcohol, you had to serve some kind of food. That was my understanding.

John Mahoney:

I don’t think he does food now on Howland, correct?

Kenny Semeken:

Correct.

Dick Quintal:

So, okay. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Are you gentlemen done now?

Harry Helm:

Well, I was I was going to wait until after a motion and a second. I have a real trouble around this because I totally understand why Kenny’s doing what he’s doing. But my problem is these One Day Liquor License were never ever designed or thought of that somebody would grab 30 of them in a row basically and open a bar, okay? I don’t think that is–in fact, that’s not the intent of the One Day Liquor License. And I know that a single applicant can ask for 30 of them, but I do not believe that it was ever the intent of that law to create something like this. So, I have a problem. I understand why he would propose this particularly given something that he stated that was not in our information that he intended to close Howland Street on those three days. And just basically do the business he’s doing now in a different larger location. So, I’m really torn on this one. I understand why he’s doing it. It makes sense. It’s a better proposition to me that now that Kenny has basically told us that he’s planning to close Howland down for those three days, but I still having trouble getting around that this is not the intention of the One Day Liquor Licenses. And it does as Mr. Bletzer mentioned, it does create the opportunity for precedence setting that in every business, every restaurant bar owner’s desire is to expand the business given everything going on with Covid, trying to keep people employed and paid during the winter but do we open ourselves up to the concept of creating a precedent that could spin into things that we really, really don’t want to see, so.

[2:30:23]

Charlie Bletzer:

Betty, you want to say something?

Betty Cavacco:

Go ahead. You go first.

Charlie Bletzer:

Real quick, Kenny, one last thing is you do beer gardens. Do you do Bramhall’s?

Kenny Semeken:

Uh-hmm.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. Do you do Hedge House too?

Kenny Semeken:

No, that’s Mayflower.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, how many licenses do you pull at Bramhall’s?

Kenny Semeken:

If your question is towards the total, we have–

Charlie Bletzer:

You can only get three.

Kenny Semeken:

We have two businesses. We have the business on 11 and the business on Howland Street. So, we have 30 for each.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, what’s the business on Howland Street?

Kenny Semeken:

Tap room and kitchen.

Charlie Bletzer:

It’s what?

Kenny Semeken:

Second Wind Brewing tap room and kitchen.

Charlie Bletzer:

That’s the Second Wind tap room and kitchen on 11 Main Street?

Kenny Semeken:

Correct. The place in Howland Street is the Second Wind Brewing Company.

Charlie Bletzer:

Oh, it’s a different? So, it’s–

Kenny Semeken:

Yeah, two different entities, yeah.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. Because I just want to let you know, you can only get 30, I believe. So, you–

Kenny Semeken:

That’s the reason why this hearing is delayed. I actually put it in for these licenses three, four weeks ago but Lisa and I had to go back and forth in terms of the–

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. I just want to make sure you run this.

Kenny Semeken:

No, no, very clear. Thanks.

Charlie Bletzer:

And I think there’s something coming up on the 19th.

Kenny Semeken:

On the 19th, yup, 10 30.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. We should all go there so we understand. A lot of people don’t understand the ABC licenses. So, anyway, Kenny, thanks.

Betty Cavacco:

Good night. I’m going to speak now. Everybody’s done, right? Yeah. So, my thought is he’s not doing anything that is wrong because we already have a policy in place. He’s allowed to apply for 30 liquor licenses or One Day Licenses. So, he’s shutting down one, he’s opening another. He’s just moving the location for a little bit bigger to bring in a little bit more business for what he does. So, my suggestion would be to approve this 30-day One Day Liquor Licenses and then work on a policy that addresses more of what the other board members have said, because he’s doing exactly what we allow him to do through the policy. So, he’s not doing anything wrong. And he’s right. Every single one of those people that are on Main Street, Court Street, Scobee Circle, wherever have the same opportunity to do it. So, I think if you want to change the policy that we have in place then we figure something out with the Town Manager and he can make suggestions for it but that’s no reason to deny this because he’s literally shutting down one business and going somewhere else, which is right around the corner. So, it’s not affecting anyone any more or less than it would have if he stayed at Howland Street. And then if we need to tighten up a policy about One-Day licenses then you know what? Then maybe it shouldn’t be 30 days, maybe a One Day licenses five days or maybe we require them to apply for a liquor license. Whatever it is, he is working within the realms of our policy and I think it would be fundamentally unfair to reject it.

Dick Quintal:

Madam Chairwoman, I don’t think it’s our policy. I think this policy is set by the ABC and the governor and I think it’s a little bit bigger than that and we talked earlier about looking at policy, I think we need to visit this one but we’re all entitled to our opinion but we do not have a policy nor do we set these policies. ABC does.

John Mahoney:

I’ll move approval, pending a second and discussion.

Betty Cavacco:

Second. Go ahead, Mr. Helm.

Harry Helm:

Nowhere in the materials, I’m inclined to go with this because he is acting within the realm but I see nowhere in Kenny’s materials that he’s committed to closing Howland Street in those three days.

Betty Cavacco:

He just said he was.

Kenny Semeken:

I happen to be but again, if I really want to–I mean, I’m not required to.

Harry Helm:

Well, he’s not required to, so–

Kenny Semeken:

But we happen to be. For the purpose of this argument, yes, I’m closing Howland Street in those days because I don’t need to hire more staffing to have an empty place sit idle, but I’m not required to.

[2:35:02]

Harry Helm:

I guess, my question is to Mr. Mahoney. Would you be willing to change your motion to motion for approval with the inclusion of the closing of the Howland Street operation during the days of these licenses?

Betty Cavacco:

I don’t think you can do that legally. No.

Charlie Bletzer:

Betty, disrespect and Kenny, you run a great business. Betty, you’re trying to be all things to all people, okay?

Betty Cavacco:

No, I’m trying to go by with the laws that govern businesses. I don’t–

Charlie Bletzer:

I know, but–

Betty Cavacco:

Listen, you should know me by now, I could care less what people think.

Charlie Bletzer:

All I’m saying is you got to put your–in business–

Betty Cavacco:

I don’t know how much clearer I can be about that.

Charlie Bletzer:

The slowest time of the year, we’re going to allow a business to come in on the weekends. The busiest times–

Betty Cavacco:

And everybody else can do it.

Charlie Bletzer:

I know. That’s my point. You’re going to set a precedent for every store in Plymouth that some of the stores in downtown are very slow in the summer, they’re busier in the winter. You’re setting a precedent for these pop-up beer gardens.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m setting a precedent to abide by the laws that we’re governed under.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay.

Kenny Semeken:

I guess, the question I would have is if I wanted to do this on the end of Spring Street behind the Chris Miller, if I wanted to do it somewhere else. I mean, is the issue that it’s on Main Street because–

Charlie Bletzer:

Yes, that’s the issue for me is where it’s located.

Kenny Semeken:

I mean, the law can’t determine. I’m within the jurisdiction of Plymouth.

Charlie Bletzer:

No, but we have a right to approve or not approve.

Kenny Semeken:

Understood. I’m not questioning that, but I’m saying–

Charlie Bletzer:

Nothing about legalities. It’s just my opinion.

Kenny Semeken:

The piece that we’re picking apart here is that it’s competition. People still have a choice to where they want to spend their dollars. Just because I’m there, I’m not going to close down seven businesses unless people don’t choose to go there and those businesses have to compete on their own. If anything, I’m bringing more business to Main Street because I’ve moved to a location that more people can come to. They can go across the street for Su Casa. They can order pizza and bring it in from Main Street. They can go to New World Tavern. They can throw access after they come to us. If anything, we’re drawing more people to that area. And I get that people see us as a threat because we do things like this because we’re about pushing boundaries and growing the business. Plymouth needs to think that way more often.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll leave it up to the board but I’m not going to vote to approve this.

Betty Cavacco:

So, we have a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any more discussion? Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

So, just building off of what Harry had mentioned earlier. I didn’t know that variable, Kenny that you were going to shut down your existing business for the three days that you were going to transition. So, that aspect of the whole thing leads me to support this. And then I think by July 4th, you’re going to be 50 feet down the sidewalk anyways. And if everything goes–

Kenny Semeken:

Right. God willing.

John Mahoney:

Yeah, God willing. So, you certainly anticipate no later than next Christmas being in 11, and you’re telling me that somebody else is going to be occupying 35, correct?

Kenny Semeken:

Yeah, Kogi will.

John Mahoney:

Right. So, given those two variables, I have no problems supporting this. And the one scenario that happened four to six years ago four miles south of here when there was issues that was brought to the board’s attention and the board addressed it and made certain changes. So, I know that you know that if there are problems, we’ll have you in here at the next Tuesday meeting. Correct?

Kenny Semeken:

Sure. Of course.

John Mahoney:

Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Kenny, I just want to confirm that you’re telling us that you will be closing Howland Street during those three days for the 30?

Kenny Semeken:

Correct. Yeah, I have no intention of running both.

Harry Helm:

Okay. So, you will be closing. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Any more discussion? Do we have a vote? All those in favor? Opposed? Three in favor, two opposed. Congratulations.

Kenny Semeken:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

All right. Now, we have License and Administrative Notes. If unless there are any that you folks have questions on, I’ll ask to move them as a group.

Anthony Senesi:

Madam Chair? The minutes for November 15th, 2022, the project was not approved at this moment, is that correct? It was tabled.

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Anthony Senesi:

Correct.

Betty Cavacco:

So, do you need to–we’ll remove those? Okay.

[2:40:02]

Betty Cavacco:

And we’ll remove the Administrative Note that Mr. Senesi just mentioned. Anyone else? Do I have a motion?

Harry Helm:

Motion to move as a group.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Okay. And last but not least is the motion to adjourn. Do I have a motion?

John Mahoney:

So move.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor? Motion to adjourn. And we’ll see you next week.