Good afternoon. Welcome to the board of health meeting of August 18th. Um, please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet. If anyone else is recording this meeting, please notify the chairman. Pursuant to
Governor Healey's March 29th, 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30th, 2027. This meeting
of the CHA Chadam Board of Health is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that people who would like to listen to this meeting
while in progress may do so by calling 1508-945-4410 conference ID 548738-527 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Chattam TV
channel 8 and 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. And I'll turn the meeting over to our chairman, Dr. Noble Hansen. >> Thank you. Uh it shall be the policy of
this board to conduct its meetings under the open meetings law so as to encourage public participation whenever time permits and as part of agenda item discussions. So today we have uh four items on the agenda and first we'll establish a quorum and when I call your
name please say present. Carol Boyce >> present. >> John Beckley >> present. >> Ron Bowman >> here. >> Ron Weiser >> present. And Noble Hansen I'm present. And we have our alternate uh Joanna Kale >> present.
>> Okay. So, first uh up we have u uh three show cause hearings on the short-term rental uh regulation with violations. The first will be Chevron Chatam Protection 25 Lantern Lane. The second Mark Leeward LLC 41 Harbor Road. And the
third, David and Evelyn Granger revokeable trust, 49 Queen Anne Road, 6 Lane, 258 Orleans Road, and 878 Main Street. >> Oh my god. >> And the case, the first uh case will be Chevron Chat and Protection 25 Lantern
Lane. And the uh town's case will be presented by Karen Jamaza. >> Thank you. Um, so as we work on compliance, we have some properties that have not responded to uh any of our letters. Um, with the Chevy Protection
Trust, we've sent letters on in May of 24, September, and December of 24, and then a final certified letter in July. We have not had any response, nor have they registered their property. It's
still an active listing on Airbnb with reviews from 2024 and 25. >> So, they've been unresponsive. >> Yes. >> Is Is there anybody here to represent the Chevys?
Anybody online? Uh so there's there's nobody present to uh represent the case for uh Chevron Chat Protection and why they haven't registered or what's going on for us. >> Can I for the Can I ask what the our
regulation provides for in terms of enforcement? Do you want to? >> It's a noncriminal disposition of up to $200 per day. >> Ticketing >> of ticketing. >> It'd be an administrative ticketing. And
how soon after we write a ticket would they get that ticket? >> Would it be legally served? Is that the way it would go? Or would it be how how do they >> I believe you can you mail them the
ticket. Um, I'm sorry. >> I believe you have to mail them the ticket to their legal address. >> Okay. Well, I would propose without delay that we proceed to uh issue u penalties
uh forth with >> issue what? >> Penalties. >> Fines. Administrative fines. I'd start and I guess the question is do we want to do them daily and just start doing it that way or do we want to give them the
first notice to get attention um and then proceed daily after a certain point of time. I don't know. I don't know what Judy thinks. >> Yeah. But I think so I think today we we would move ahead with the penalty. What
we're going to do about this someone who's non-compliant. This is the first time it's come up. So what we do today will kind of set a precedent for how we're going to handle it. >> Um and I'd ask you what what's the what's the fine? Did you say >> it's $200 per day?
>> Right. 200 that in the regulations um each day. So, um I would ask Karen, she may have some experience about what other towns are doing or um any idea of of of um possibilities. I mean, we know what we can do.
>> So, East Ham is where I've have the most experience with it. And they would typically fine, they could do up to $300 per day. And they typically fine either the number of days that they knew it was
rented or a straight $300 fine minus the registration fee. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, they were 300. >> 300. Yeah, they were 300. >> Oh, they were 300. I see. >> Say that again. I'm not sure. >> In East, it's a $300 fine.
>> Yeah. So you could you could find um just based on the days they rented. So if you looked online and saw that it was being rented this week, you could find them. >> It might be difficult to for us to really know for sure how many days are rented, right?
>> But and I would I would just ask one other thing and we'll get to Ron. Um >> so if if we set a fine per day and it builds up builds up builds up and then they finally come in and want to say, "Well, I need to sign up." Can we negotiate a lower settlement fee or do we have to? >> I don't.
>> Or do we have to do >> We could, but I don't think we should. >> Okay. We could, but that would be okay. >> But I wouldn't tell them that up. >> No, absolutely. But um Ron, >> do we know that the property is actually being rented? >> Yes. >> I mean, so in the packet, I did a copy
of their active Airbnb listing. And so it is active. There are days you can go in and rent it should you choose, but it also has reviews. And if you worked with Airbnb, you know, you have to have stayed in order to make the review.
>> Um, so you can't just go on to their site and add a review. It has to be from someone who has essentially paid for a stay. >> I mean, doesn't it sound strange that somebody wouldn't reply to a certified letter? >> I know. No. >> On multiple occasions.
>> Yeah. I mean, it just seems odd to me. Did they have to sign for the certified letter? >> That's an issue with this one. >> With the Chevy Town Protection Trust, I can't be sure that it was actually delivered. The first letter said
delivered original sender, but we haven't received it back. They have not picked up the second one, but I do always send a copy non-certified, just regular. >> I mean, it just seems to me we've bent over backwards. I mean, you've done so
many letters, mult two certified letters. I I wonder if something either something strange is going on. Why would any why would anybody completely violate that? Uh it just seems very odd. So I I I don't see any reason why you shouldn't
start finding them. I don't know if they'll >> that's why that's why I asked suppose there is some extraordinary explanation that we find out later. >> You can always make an adjustment. But as we don't want to do that, I I agree we'd start now and
um let it build up and and um >> I guess my question is do we have to talk to town council to to make sure that that we are on firm ground proceeding the way we think we should?
In other words, are they going to claim like a legal defense that says to, "Well, we never received. We deny receipt and then it's >> Can we legally assume now that they're renting it and they haven't complied and
we can move ahead?" >> So, I looked into specifically the ticketing and with that you have to prove that you sent it to their legal address. So, in which case it's the 25 Lantern Lane. I don't think they get
mail there. >> Um, but that's our only contact point for them and that's where they've said they legally receive things. >> Is is that the address on the tax bills? >> Yes, that is >> their legal address for their tax bills
>> for all the >> for every correspondence is supposed to go there. >> Are are they are they in a rears for paying their taxes? I doubt I doubt that. >> I wouldn't doubt that. >> I guess my point is I think they get >> I don't know if Noble to your point, let's say there is something
extraordinary, >> right? >> Well, I mean I don't know if that's really the board's problem. >> No, I mean I think it I mean I think the decision for us is it's written in the short-term rental regulation what the penalty can be. And I would think that
we would they've had every opportunity we would move ahead with the penalty amounts and then um hopefully you know they would come to the point where they decide that they want to um comply and then we can go from there. >> Can we contact them through their Airbnb
address? Obviously somebody's reaching them to make rental. It's >> probably an agent but could be them. >> No, I think it is them. Um, you can do through messaging through Airbnb. Um, I go on currently under my personal
account, which I don't necessarily want to be connected with my job for. >> Right. >> Can I ask a question? >> Do we have Joanna? >> Is this on? Um, so they're charged if it's rented, but in this it says an
offer to rent. Are they charged for that too? Penalized for that? >> For what? Um, >> I mean it's on wherever they >> Yeah, I think if it's offered to rent that's I mean are you are you reading from the
regulation or >> if there's no owner shall rent or offer to rent any short-term rent rental? >> So if they're offering it to rent then that's >> so are they going to be fined for that? >> Yes. I think that was the idea was we could find them every day until they comply.
>> We don't have to know if it's if we see it. We know that they're offering to rent it, so we don't really need to know if it's rented because they're going to be fined. >> Well, that's a very important point and a very good point. >> It's been rented, a review. >> Oh, no. I know it's been rented, but
>> but you have to have a date on the on the fine. There's got to be a date of the offense >> start. >> Right. >> Right. You either have to show >> I think we can easily prove that it's been offered to rent this season online.
Um, the only thing I would want to double check maybe with town council is the fact that we did not get a green card back. Um, we may need to go out and post the letter in person >> um to make sure >> that they
>> That's what we used to do. I've done that before. Um, so I I would think that perhaps we before we start um you know citing them with tickets that we um make sure copy of the notice and you go to
the place and you scotch tape it to the front door or whatever and then you take a picture of it. >> Now you have effectuated notice. >> Yep. >> Right. >> And then just we can double check with town council and make sure that that's necessary. >> So
>> but I would living there if they're renting the property. >> They don't live there. >> No. But you're saying that's their legal address. >> I mean we only can go by what we have in the town records. So >> I I think you're on very firm legal ground here.
>> I mean, they've got a they've got a address that they use for tax purposes that you've sent it to. You could go out and post it on the property, which they'll never see and which they could probably say even if the place was rented that the tenants never turned it over to us,
>> right? >> I don't think you're I don't think you're going to get a response coming back from them. Yeah, I would say yeah, I agree that we would move ahead with a penalty phase and maybe we can vote for that pending a review with the attorney. >> Yes. >> So we don't have to kick it down the road.
>> Yeah. >> And then what happens? Okay, let's let's play it further. Let's assume that we do this and we leverage you know several penalties over a period of time and they are unresponsive
to that then we bring the matter to court. >> Yes. >> And we seek uh collection of the assessed penalties through Barnstable Court, county court. >> Yes. Yes. Okay. >> That would be the next step. >> Okay. So,
>> so if we're going to have to go that far possibly, I say don't be timid. You know what I'm saying? I'm saying if they're going to push us to that, let's make it worth our while to
um that's just not doing what I'm saying is don't do one. My opinion would be do a week's worth. >> You know, do something that that amounts to a significant amount of money. >> Yeah. Well, it would be it would be each day it would roll forward.
>> So you could do seven seven violations, seven assessments for if you know that one particular week if you if you have confidence. >> Well, I think >> yeah, again we we could as Joanne was saying if it's we know it's it's been offered. >> Yes.
>> From the week of you know how do we show that it's how do we prove it's been offered? >> It's on the website. >> It's on it's on the Airbnb website. >> Okay. Then we have to take a picture of that and you know we have to document that >> and I would say yeah and if they want to contest it or there's something they
come to us and say >> here's you know and make their argument. So I would so I would suggest that we vote on uh on this particular property to proceed with the uh penalty portion
of the Chattam Board of Health um short-term rental regulation which is $200 per day. Um and then take the next step after that pending review by the attorney. >> Yes. that we were on on legal good legal
ground >> because it was not we did not get a green card back. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Right. >> Okay. Does some can someone make the motion or is that can I motion? I don't know what's proper. >> Also move. >> Okay. A second. >> I'll second.
>> Okay. And that's we're all set there. You think? >> Yeah. Dian's got that. >> All right. So, I'll um I'll take a roll call vote on who's in favor of the motion. Um before us, Carol Boyce, >> approved. >> John Beckley, >> yes. >> Ron Browman, >> yes.
>> Ron Weiser, >> yes. >> Noble Hansen, yes. >> That is approved to begin with the penalty fave phase for Chevy Chatam Protection. >> Okay. All right. Next um on the list is Mark
Leeward LLC, 41 Harbor Road. And again, we'll have Karen sort of present the case there and what the town's going doing and where we are. >> So, very similar. Um, the big difference here is that we have confirmation that
someone accepted the certified mail both in November of last year and July of this year. >> Okay. >> Um, they did get slightly fewer letters, but they've gotten at least three. >> Okay.
I'll make a motion we proceed with the assessment of administrative penalties in this case as well. >> Well, is is uh somebody here representing a Mark Leeward LLC online or in the room? >> Somebody for Mark Leeward LLC.
>> Okay. And then and then is it the same situation with notifying them to appear at the board of health? Does that go by registered letter? >> That went by registered letter which they accepted and they did accept the letter. So they know this hearing was happening. >> They were not. >> Uh John's made the motion. Is there a
second? >> Second. >> Okay. And then I'll take a roll call vote. Uh >> no. No. Quick question. So >> we're going to vote to start assessing a penalty. So it's $200 a day. Rolling forward beginning when? Today?
>> As soon as they we get a review from the attorney, which would be >> Well, >> I don't think we really need an attorney on this. >> I don't think we do. I don't think I don't know >> on this one because we they did receive the certified letters. >> The first one they didn't we don't have a receipt that they received it. This
one we do. >> When and when did the last letter go out that they received? >> It would be the letter requiring them to attend. >> No. What date? >> Jul. >> July. It was delivered July 12th.
>> July 12th. It just see it just seems strange to me. >> July 12th. So somebody wouldn't respond in any way to that kind of a note. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um there's so >> there's like 900 or a thousand. So I mean there's a lot of and this is one
>> this is the >> Okay. So this one how do we >> we have the receipt that they received it. They have not appeared at the uh hearing today. >> So if Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Let me I I'm interrupting. I'm sorry. >> Oh no. Go ahead. And you you have the >> So I'm I'm looking at the pragmatic of
this. Can we assess a 7-day penalty, 200* 7 in one notice, or do we have to do seven separate notices at $200 each and convey all seven in one mailing?
I think you have to do each assessed fine separately if you're going to start like from today. >> Um I think you could retroactively say we're assessing a fine for this this
this this violation at $200 >> um >> at one time. What do we mail one today and then we mail one tomorrow, we mail one the next day and they just kind of pile up like that as a daily penalty. >> The penalties stop at seven days with or
they don't go forward? I think forward >> until they do what we're asking them to do. >> Okay. So we would just ongoing daily until further. >> So is that how you want us to do it? Starting tomorrow? >> Starting tomorrow >> or do you want us to go back to the 1st
of July or something? No, I would I would say we haven't been at the hearing, so I would say tomorrow and forward. >> I would re I would recommend you start tomorrow >> and keep doing it every day until our next meeting on September the 8th. We'll review it on September the 8th. Okay.
>> And then do we have to send now? >> Yeah. >> When we send that notice of violation, does that have to go certified or does that just go regular? This is a this is a noncriminal um what's it called? Noncriminal
disposition. So it's actually a ticket that we we have a ticket book at like what the police >> we have to convey it to them somehow. Do we do it by regular mail or do we have to do certified >> because again you mean they can just
choose to not pick up the certified? >> I mean I thought we posted them at the property but I Karen may know better. We can don't remember what they said when I looked it up. >> Well, we can you you can check that out. >> We'll find out what the best way.
>> Whichever way we're supposed to do it legally, we just do it that way. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. >> What would be the end of this? >> What's going to be the end? I mean, are we >> they coming the town attorney into a court process?
Then the court would order them to judge in in order them to appear in the court and then it becomes sort of a legal thing. >> Legal question. All right. So it's out of our hands at that point. >> Yes. Yes. >> We we've been we've been through that sort of thing other issues.
>> Okay. So uh other comments or questions? Anything from the audience? >> I do. So you're going to send out the letter tomorrow? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But if it's the decision is made today, why isn't it postdated to to today when the decision was made?
>> I know it's >> not going out today. >> Yeah, they're not going to go out. >> No, it wouldn't be going out, but it could be postdated today. >> We could we could >> the date of the first date of offense could be today and it's mailed tomorrow. >> That's when you voted on it. >> Yeah, we can do it that way.
>> Do we have a ticket? >> I do, I think. >> Okay. Uh yeah, that that's >> that's fine. That's >> And so uh John, did you you put forward the motion I think did you already? >> I did. Yeah. Proceed
>> and you second it. Okay. So this is on the Mark Leeward to proceed with the penalty phase and the penalty would start today and notice would go out tomorrow as soon as we can and then uh we'll take any any um input from the
public and then we can take a voice or vote um when I call your name say yes or no. Carol Boyce >> yes. >> Uh John Beckley >> yes. >> Ron Bman >> yes. >> Ron Weiser >> yes. and Noble Hansen I say yes.
>> All right. >> Okay. And then the third one on the list is um David and Evelyn Granger Revokable Trust, 49 Queen Anne Road, 6 Sabin's
Lane, 258 Orleans Road, and 878 Main Street. >> So there's four properties. and Karen, uh, would you present the the case for that town's case? >> So, like the other two, I've reached out
numerous times, four times to contact them about the requirement to register their short-term rental. Um, I've actually spoken with Mrs. Granger and sent her the
application and instructions on how to register. Um but they have not yet registered the properties. >> Okay. So this one you actually have personal contact. >> Yes. >> That uh is good. >> Yes. >> In terms of documentation,
>> you have you have notes as to when you spoke with her and I mean the time and all. I mean the date at least. Okay. >> I emailed her the link to our online permitting and a copy of the what would be the paper application on August 1st.
And so did you we have a receipt that they've been notified by by certified mail or whatever or >> No, but she called me after receiving it. >> Did they offer any reason or any hesitation or any um extraordinary circumstance that might be playing into
it? >> Nope. I got off that phone thinking she was going to do that >> in the near future. >> I would I make the motion we proceed with >> I have one question. Well, you can make your motion. Well, I would just similar to the >> one issue. So, this is four properties.
>> It's four times 200. >> Okay. Is that what four times 200? >> Yes, it is. >> Now, >> sounds like a lot, but if you look at what places are renting for in >> it could be a business expense, >> right? >> Exactly. >> And they say they six homes in China.
Why are only four listed? I only saw four on for advertisement. They have one in Haritch right on the line >> and then I do believe they own two units at 878 Main Street,
>> but only because I know in one of their little ads, >> it said they own six properties in Chadam. >> Yeah, that would make sense. Um my question was did you have you had any contact with Chadam vacation properties?
>> That is their personal website. So it's just for their f six prop or five or six properties. >> That's interesting. Okay. So Chattam Vacation Properties is the Griners >> Yes. >> um website. >> Yeah.
>> Oh, that's one and the same. >> Yep. So if you go the second page, that's their contact info. Oh, okay. >> And so, somebody had the question about the the business, a business rental. I mean, is 878 Main Street, is that an apartment or a business? >> There are apartments above the
>> apartments. Okay. >> That they probably rent out. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The businesses are separate condos. John has made the motion that we begin penalty phase of um >> we proceed with the penalty phase for this uh David Evelyn Granger revocable
trust for properties >> beginning um >> today >> today will go out tomorrow >> um any input from the public no I have a quick yes question >> when you spoke with Mrs. Granger, did
you indicate to her that if this is not forthcoming, here is what the penalty is going to be? >> I did not um I mean most of the conversation I did not realize it was Mrs. Granger. Um she just gave me her
first name. So it wasn't until the end that >> then in that case I think you really do need to set a certified letter because if you start leveling level leveling penalties could she not say I didn't know it was a penalty. >> She received a certified or they is also
her husband received a certified letter that they picked up in November. They also received a certified letter that they didn't accept in July. But they did accept the one in November. >> They accepted one.
>> So they are aware of the requirement and the and the obligations. >> Yes. And I did send both certified and regular mail. So I I mean >> I guess my only point is they're aware of the what the penalty will be.
>> I mean every single one of the letters said $200. >> So if you level they can't come back and say, "Well, wait a minute. I talked to her and she never told me about there was a penalty because they've been made aware of it. >> It states it in the letter you send out. >> Yes. >> Right.
>> Every letter that we sent says that >> this one doesn't have the actual $200 per day. >> They just need to know that it's the law. >> So it's more like $800 a day for them then. Right. >> Right. >> Wow. >> Wow.
>> Okay. $5,600 week. >> Wow. >> We re I have one. >> John Beckley. Um you did the uh initial motion. I didn't get a second. Are we still discussing
>> Ron? Second. Um >> on the third. Yes. >> Okay. So, u So, we're we're clear that um >> Did you vote? >> We have to vote yet. >> Yeah, we have to vote. We we can move ahead with the penalty. In this case, it'd be $800 a day. >> Yes.
>> But we we're they've been notified and we're square on that. Is that what I'm >> Okay. >> I'm comfortable with it. >> Okay. And then >> and like I say, if they come forward, we can all be reviewed perhaps. U this is a
company. So these people, this this is a business. They they you know, they should be aware. Okay. So, we'll take a roll call vote and all in favor, please say yes. Carol Boyce, >> yes. >> John Beckley, >> yes. >> Ron Bowman, >> yes. >> Ron Weiser, >> yes.
>> And Noble Hansen, yes. Okay. So, we'll that will be we'll be proceeding with that in Evelyn Granger revocable trust penalty phase. >> Okay. And then um so, and I understand that there's more to come. So, we have
15 additional properties that have not responded, >> right? >> So, I guess >> so it'll be So, this is this is a new thing. >> Yeah. >> And um we'll just uh take it as it comes. >> Okay. >> Um
Okay. Uh, next on the agenda is uh definitive subdivision plan review for the Chattam Drama Guild, 104 Crow Road, East Southeast LLC. >> And do we have someone here to present
that um case? I >> think this is uh East Southeast. Is is his dad here? Um I um this is going to be represented by Terry Eldridge.
Um I'm not sure if he's here. >> Does he have to be here? >> He was having Well, he doesn't necessarily have to be, but I did ask him to come to answer any um questions. Um but he was having a a um medical
procedure and he was going to try and join us online. I did send him the link. Um, >> now we we reviewed the uh preliminary subdivision plan for this property, I believe. >> Um, no, the Chadam, this is a new one. >> We I don't think we reviewed the
preliminary on this. >> Um, this is a definitive subdivision plan. I don't I don't think we did do a >> Okay. >> preliminary on this, but it's pretty straightforward. It's on town sewer. Um
it's two lots and then they are um taking a small parcel uh of the property next door, the theater guild to add to lot 25. Um
so I I'm assuming so they can meet the requirements of the zoning board. >> Your notes planning board, >> three building lots. Yes, I'm sorry. Three building blocks. So, it's lot 23, 24, and 25. Um, they will all be sewered and they will all be required to meet
our um our regulations as far as size of property. Um, so a 18,000 square foot have three bedrooms on sewer. 20,000 again could have thou
could have three bedrooms on sewer. And um the 16,0001 would also be allowed three bedrooms with sewer. >> And these will there's there's municipal sewer on the road. So they'll be hooking up to sewer. They're not they won't be building septic,
>> right? It's on sewer. >> So as I understand it, our role here is we just say in our opinion that adequate septic sewer can be had on this property, >> right? And then if it was a septic system, they would have to come and make
a separate application to us for that specific septic system. Sewer hookup would go to the select board as the sewer and water >> Yep. >> board and uh get it approved. So it's what we do today is pretty
straightforward and um there'll be a second application of something specific. So are there questions from the board on this? Any questions from the public? I I'll make a motion we approve the application.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. >> I don't see any comments online. And I don't see Terry Eldridge. Um >> it's not necessary for them to act to be here by the rules. >> Okay. I don't think so. No. >> All right. So, I'll take we can take a a
roll call vote on that and when I call your name uh reply. Carol Boyce? >> Yes. >> John Beckley? >> Yes. >> John Broman? >> Yes. Uh Ron Weiser. >> Uh yes. >> Noble Hansen. Yes. Okay. So that definitive subdivision plan for the Chattam Drama Guild is approved and
they'll be hooking up to sewer. >> All right. The next uh uh definitive subdivision plan is for um Allan and Joan Perau 79 Forest Beach Road East Southeast LLC.
We do have Jamie Norcross, Riley Norcross on on the line. >> Okay, Mr. Norcross, can you present the case for us? >> Sure. Absolutely. Uh, good afternoon. Jamie Norcross representing Allen and Joe Peralt. Um, this plan probably looks
very familiar to you. It was reviewed and approved by uh your board back in May. The difference being at that point it was being uh reviewed by the planning board as >> Can you get get a little closer to the mic? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Try my volume. Is that better?
>> It's >> kind of tiny. >> Can you hear me better now? >> Yeah, if you speak up >> a little bit better. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, so this was in front of you back in May as a a modified subdivision plan uh based on a technicality and I
won't bore you with the details, but the planning board required that it be filed as an entirely new definitive subdivision as opposed to a modification. Uh the important part for your board is that it's uh exactly the same the two lots that you saw back in May. It's just that the heading on the
plan has been changed. Uh but as part of the planning board requirement, they did uh require Mr. and Mrs. Prell to come back to the board of health for uh review and approval of the plan as a definitive plan. >> Okay. So it's it's exactly the same plan
that we approved the preliminary subdivision for, >> right? Uh but it's sort of a technicality. It's coming back to us to be approved again. >> You just title. >> Yeah. You saw it as a preliminary then you saw it as a definitive and then a
modified definitive I think. >> So I think this is the fourth time you've seen this. >> Um because it was issued as a modified they the planning board wanted you to see it again as a definitive. Um
>> so you okay with this Judy? Yeah, it I actually wrote a memo, not a memo, but a note to the um planning board saying the board didn't need to see it again. Okay. >> And they they approved it with the condition that the board of health looked at it again. >> I'll make a motion we approve it.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. Any input from the public? >> Oh, um Ron, did you have a question? >> No. Okay. Um All right. So, we can go ahead and take a uh roll call vote um to approve. When I call your name, please
reply. Carol Boyce, >> yes. >> John Beckley, >> yes. >> Ron Browman, >> yes. >> Ron Weiser, >> yes. >> Noble Hansen, yes. So, that is approved. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Um Okay.
All right. So, uh, the final thing on the agenda is, uh, an update to 32 Milh Hill Road, uh, the McGrath property, and, uh, Judy is going to catch us up to date with with what has happened, which is significant, I think.
>> Um, yeah, we we're moving along. Um, the, uh, requests for proposals went out and we had, um, a site visit. Uh there were there were a lot of interest in the beginning there and then there were six or seven people that came to the site
visit. The police were there. Um Mr. McGrath was there >> and they walked the property. >> They walked the property. Um and >> they walked down the down the hill to his house. >> Yep. They went they went around. I didn't think they didn't go all the way to the pond, but just to the kind of the
limit of where the materials were. Yep. >> Um I wasn't there. Um, uh, Greg Burman, director of natural resources, was there with the police and our our conservation agent was there as well because he needed to see what the
conservation issues were. Um, apparently um, when the bids closed, we only had one bid uh, come in from a contractor and that is going to be opened on Friday >> of this week >> of this week. Um it is not a local
contractor that bid. Um so >> stay tuned. >> Stay tuned really is where where we're at. So we have to review it. We're going to review it with DPW for the adequacy of the of the proposal. Um >> so opening the bid requires a number of
people to be together and and sort of do the whole thing as a group. That's why it's scheduled, >> right? >> Um okay. And >> I will be there for that. Uh and then so there's a certain amount of money that has been uh uh voted by the town towards this project and so we don't know if hit
the bid number is above or below that. >> I guess >> that's my understanding. We don't >> and if it goes above it was it you have to go back and finance the whole thing. >> Well that would be >> I mean the truth is my understanding is we don't even know the the type
the nature of the bid. In other words, there could be a wraparound price that says we will do this for blank or it could be we will work on this at a rate of $600 per hour with a threeman crew in
a truck. And in other words, we'll run run it as long as we see more and more material. In which case, then there would be a cap on the time. In other words, if we have only suppose
that if we only have $100,000 to draw down, then we can only authorize >> up to that amount >> up to that amount if that's the nature of the quote, >> right? >> If it's a if it's a time wait and see. >> Yes. >> So, that's that's where we're at. That's
what we have to see is >> or we could simply ask them to revise their bid. >> Yeah. I I'm not This is kind of new to me. I'm not really sure. >> I've submitted a lot of RFPs. Almost every one I've ever submitted, somebody's asked me to revise it. So, >> okay. Well, then there's there's your
answer. Yes. >> Who's the ultimate decision maker for for accepting the bid? >> Um, >> Greg Burman. >> Greg, I think we're >> go back to the select board. >> Yeah. I'm not sure. I don't >> Okay. >> I don't think it needs to go back to the select board. No. >> Um, >> hopefully it'll be under I would guess
the contract you talked about would rarely be accepted because it's like too in it. >> Yeah. Right. Uh, do you have any idea why there was such a drop off in terms of the number of people who decided to bid? >> I don't know. I mean, maybe they saw something they didn't like, you know,
maybe they were concerned about >> the owner. I don't know. That's just speculation. >> Could have just been the leg could have been the logistics of getting to and getting it up. >> Yeah, that's a good >> You're going to need special equipment. >> That's a good point. >> I mean, you just can't pick it up and
carry stuff up. I mean, you don't you need like a long >> Yeah, it's it's slloy there. That's my point. Hard to get in. I mean, I I'm not an expert, but it seems like you could start at the top and work your way down, but um >> we'll see.
>> Yeah, Mr. McGrath was nothing special there that you're aware of. >> Um I think that what I heard was that the police department did a really great job of um keeping him calm >> and diffusing any situation. >> Good. Um he insisted that it would all
be cleaned up before we even got to this point which um >> we've heard before. I >> I haven't been up there and but we will go be taking a look before we open the bids just to see if anything has changed dramatically. >> So can you advise us? Are we allowed to
hear like between meetings on how it goes? I mean is this something that the board >> I the bid opening is public? >> Okay. >> I mean it's public. We can we can have a followup on the agenda at the next meeting about what happened. >> We definitely can.
>> And the other thing I and I don't think this is >> privilege or anything, but the cleanup had like two c three categories. Um one are things that were clearly trash. One is things that are contested, valuable,
worth something which would be stored at his expense >> but removed. And then um there was a third category, but I'm amendment. But anyway, >> no matter what category
of of stuff on the property it falls into, it all gets removed. >> But it's then going to be >> and if I I know if it's if it's something it can be sold for money, it would be sold. So everything will be removed. So it can be contested, but it's still going to be removed and put in either stored or whatever, which gets
over a big hurdle of logistics as I understand it. Okay. Any input from the um public? Any other comments from the board? So, we'll have next meeting we'll have a follow-up and we'll have a lot of
information. So, it'll be interesting. >> I don't see any any hands up for the public. >> Any any other thoughts or questions or >> or maybe Judy could send us an email after the opening this Friday to let us
know. >> Sure. Yes. Are you part of that group? That's >> I am going to be there. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Just kind of an update. >> Yeah. I can let you know status. >> I thought we shared the request for proposal with you. Did Did we >> I don't I never saw it. >> Not that I would know how to read it, but
>> Well, it's it's pretty straightforward. >> It was public because I think it was it's it's it was advertised in the paper and then there was public access to it. >> Yeah. I will I can um >> I got some of it and some of it was talking to Mr. Burman. I think
>> I can send this to you. I'll share this with you. >> So, >> okay. All right. Um, that's all settled, I guess. Okay. So, then, um, all right. Um, any, uh, public
comments, future agenda items, request? So, we'll have a followup on Milh Hill at the next meeting. Um, a future item agenda item will be um
well any any requests or >> No, >> this M this is >> this is Mr. Eldridge. She >> Oh, >> we're all set with him. So, >> figure out >> how to get here. >> You're all good. You're all good. But I
tried. >> Thanks, Jerry. >> No problem. >> Okay. So, we'll have Milh Hill the next meeting and then I think the transfer station um issue. Judy is putting together a letter that
will go out to the commercial refuge that will state >> and I will have it for you at the next meeting. >> In black and white, the town trash regulation says no out of town trash. that's in the regulation. >> Okay. >> Um and then our proposal to beef up the
application form with an att testation >> uh section where they say they are not going to take trash from other towns or mix it. >> And then we're sort of dealing with uh the transfer station in the midst of uh FY so that each commercial truck driver
when it gets weighed gets signs attestation at the time that that load is only Chattam trash. It's not. >> So, um that's what we can do there. And >> it was picked up in Chadam. It was >> we heard from um Millie and Nickerson
and they were before the select board that this is my interpretation of what I heard that it's just a very minimal amount that comes from out of town. So hopefully they'll say, "Okay, we can live with the rules and then it'll be it'll work out fine." Questions or
comments from the board? comments from the public. I would say one thing um about the I don't know if this is a discussion or is this an agenda item? >> It's not an agenda item. So, we shouldn't be really be talking about it if it's not on the agenda.
>> Okay, I'll save it for next time. Um >> should we acknowledge in our minutes that we have a selectman liaison here at the meeting today? You >> It goes on It goes on. >> You are our leazison. >> Write it down. >> True. That's correct, Mr. Becky. >> Okay.
>> See, he's sitting where there's not near a mic, so he's he's in good shape, >> but I think the minutes I think it should reflect that >> she usually reflects who's in the audience. >> Okay, >> does >> All right. So, that No. Any other Anyone else has a a future agenda item request?
>> Not. >> I mean, one thing that I've always thought about just let at the airport, but that's we have nothing to do with that at the moment. I do think at some point we'll do a more ma at the end of the summer in the fall or early winter a major review of the short-term rental regulation and how it went with the first full summer in progress
>> and with an idea do we do is there anything we need to do differently with the regulation >> right >> so that would be for the future okay >> I I have one question we know when they're going to try doing the floor of the uh transfer station >> when they're when they are
>> when it's going to be >> repairing the floor >> oh that's the second phase. >> I think the funding was approved. >> I think it's like a year or two away. >> No, no, but the floor I think they're going to be working on this coming year because I believe the funding approved for that. >> Keep it clean. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Ron, >> I have one one recommendation. If if we have 15 15 more of these rental issues coming before us, I'd like to propose that we get this into some sort of a flowchart so that we don't have to deal
with them all as a oneoff. You know, here's what we're going to do here. I mean, you already have that. Here's what we're going to do. Here's what to do if we don't get the response back. Here's what we do if we do get the response back. Here's you know what I'm saying? So that you know we don't have
to it should be very easy to come up with a flowchart for decision making for this so that we don't have to reinvent reinvent the wheel on every one of these. >> We would have to vote on each one separately at some point. >> I I'm I'm not opposed to that. I'm just
saying the procedure >> right so that >> should have a flowchart associated. >> How many would you bring at one time to the board do you think? Would you bring all 15? Probably not. No, probably groups of five. >> Five. >> And then send the letters as groups of five. Assume we're going to get about a
50% >> compliance rate. And that's two or three. >> That's what we we did. We started with five because we didn't want to overwhelm the board, but we were hoping that more people would comply just based on >> voluntarily. So, yeah. >> Yeah.
>> So, we can do that. we can put together some type of a um >> I mean I think we're I think by the time we get these three plus 15 more 18 we ought to be getting pretty good at it. >> Yeah. >> So >> yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Then we have um >> minutes >> minutes from uh July 21st. >> I'll make a motion we accept the draft minutes of July 21st. Uh, I had one correction on page three, um, under public comment and then it's like, uh, one, two, three, fourth down.
It says Richard Ward made the motion to approve. I'm assuming that's some kind of a >> Oh, so I think it was Dick Edwards. Richard Ward. Who's that? >> Richard Ward. I don't I don't know a Richard Ward person, >> but I think it Yeah, somehow Ward got in there.
>> He could have. >> So, you think it was Dick Edwards? Okay. So, change that to Dick Edwards. Assume so. All right. And then a motion. We have a motion to approve with that one change. Second. >> I'll sec. >> Spell check doesn't pick up on that. >> Excuse me. >> Spellch check doesn't pick up on that.
>> It did not. That's right. >> Now we know you know. >> Um, okay. So, we'll we'll take a voice. We'll take a roll call vote. Carol Boyce. >> I don't think I was at this. >> You weren't there. >> Okay. John Beckley. >> Yes. >> Were you on the
>> Ron Bman? >> Yes. U Ron Weiser. Yes. Joanna Kale, I guess you can >> I can vote. >> Oh, yes. And then Noble Hansen. Yes. Okay. So, the minutes are accepted. >> And um adjournment.
Does anybody want to >> I'll make a motion. We adjourn. >> Second. >> Okay. And again, Carol Boyce. >> Yes. >> John Beckley. Yes. >> Ron Broomman. Yes. Ron Weiser. Yes. And Noble Hansen. Yes.