Evening Littleton. Welcome to the March 25th, 2026 board of health meeting. Present this evening are myself, Matt Wson, Kevin Davis, Dan Kaine, and Francis Dale. We have a quorum, so we will get our
meeting started. Our first agenda item is our 7 p.m. continue public hearing on 9 Woodland Drive. If you are representing that item, please raise your hand so we can bring you into the discussion. Thought
he was there. Jack Maloney. >> Hello. Can everybody hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Uh, it's Jack from Dillis and Roy. How are you? >> Good, thank you. Uh I believe this is a continuation from a meeting that was held back in
February. Uh the board was looking for um floor plans of the property as well as a updated uh assessor's uh card which both of those have been submitted to Francis um I believe last
week. Um the assessors did walk through the property. They revised the uh assessor's card to reflect what's actually there and not 16 rooms and eight bedrooms as it previously previously had said. Uh and then I also
provided Francis with a uh sketch of the floor plan uh that I cleaned up from what the owner had sent to me. >> Okay. Can you uh share some plans and kind of walk us through from the from the start then for what we're doing? >> Sure.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Can everybody see the screen? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, uh we have 9 Woodland Drive. Uh it is a twounit five- bedroomedroom uh house. Uh we have a built-in pool that's off to the back left. We have a
paved driveway in the front left. The existing septic system is in this clouded area in the back. Uh we did a deep test hole and a perk test last summer. Uh and we have provided a GLM mat system in the back. Uh with a new uh
uh 2,000gallon two compartment tank and a 1000gallon pump chamber. Um we would be looking for uh couple of local variances. Regulation 23, retaining wall walls and fill to a butter uh and fill,
sorry, a butter notification prior to approving a system incorporating retaining wall and fill within 10 ft of a property line. We provided 2 and 1/2 ft with the uh towed slope to the back property line. Uh regulation 27, fill requirements, no portion of a fill
requirement for SAS shall be uh within 10 ft of a property line. So both of those are pretty much the same. Um, title 5 local upgrade approvals 154051H we are asking for a 1 ft separation uh
from the 4t to a 3-foot groundwater offset and then 4051k 1 deep hole has been performed uh in the disposable area. Uh and that was done basically due to a lack of area to to work with back there.
All right, thank you for that presentation. Uh, Francis, can you give us your review? >> Um, so it's pretty tight lot as you can see. There's not many places to be able to site the system um without requiring too much Title 5 relief.
Um, everything that Jack said is what I saw too. Not much to say. All right, questions from the board. Kevin Davis. >> Uh, what's the distance between the tanks and the house?
>> Uh, we have 10 ft. >> Okay. And what's >> Oh, actually it's 11 ft. You can see it right in here. >> And what's the distance between the tank bleaching field and the pool? >> Um, the tank to the pool is a little bit
less than 20 ft. But there's a 10-ft offset per title 5 20 ft for the uh septic system itself. >> Okay. And it's more than 20 ft from the septic system because there's no >> the le the leech field to the actual
edge of the pool which is right here is more than 20 ft. Yes. >> Okay. There's just no measurement. So we don't know if that's the Okay. But I I get it. I get it. I see 11 ft and then I know that's more than that away. Okay.
>> It's actually more Yeah, it's more more like 15 ft from the edge of the pool to where the edge of the septic tank is. >> Okay. All right. I have no further questions. >> And Kane, >> uh, so I know this was continued because of the odd room count on the initial
assessor's plan. Um, you said you shared it with Francis. Francis, can you share I looked at the assessor's card right now online. Obviously, it's unofficial, but that has not been updated yet. Can you update your walk through, your room count, all that stuff since that was the reason we actually continued this last
time? >> Just to let the board know, the the assessors update their cards, I think, twice a year. So, uh the next time they update everything, this will get changed officially on the u the uh GIS web area.
>> So, I I can share the floor plan that's in the packet if you want. Um essentially, there's an in-law suite that exists. So, on the first floor is the main house. Then, as you go up to the second, there's a suite um with, I believe, two bedrooms or three.
Um, so the concern was is this complete separated space? Could this be considered a condo situation? Could this be sold separately as two different units? Um, and it cannot as we saw in the uh floor plan now
>> and you did a walk through. So this is accurate floor plan and the the room numbers are correct and all that. >> Um, I was not able to get in. We did request to get in. So I talked to the assessor who has been in and she okay >> labeled each room. So that's how I was
able to determine it. >> Okay. So the assessment I'm just I just want to make sure since that was a continuation rationale that we actually have had >> yes >> had a town person confirm that this is accurate. I mean I don't think any of us believed it was 16 and 8 but just making sure that we are are provided some due
diligence. So okay. So the uh the plan as described here is consistent with what the assessor saw. So, um, no, I that was that was my only question. I think Kevin covered the the offsets. So, >> uh, and I was not here for the first hearing on this. Um, so the only thing I
see from the the layout sketch is that there are five bedrooms on the property and so the system is sized for a five-bedroom house. >> Correct. >> Okay. Then I have no further questions. Any audience members?
Sorry, any audience members with any input, please raise your hand. And again, because this was continued, I assumed you guys already discussed a Butters and notification. >> Yes. I believe uh prior to the last hearing, I sent uh Francis a copy of all
the green cards and and white slips. >> Okay. >> So, he should have that on file. >> Yep. We have receipts. >> Yep. >> Would anyone like to make a motion? I'll make a motion that we grant the variances and local upgrade approvals as
requested on the proposed plan for 9 Woodland Drive. >> Second it. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Davis. >> Kevin Davis votes yes. >> Dan Kaine. >> Dan Kane votes yes.
>> Matt Wson votes yes. Thank you for your presentation. Good luck with the project. >> Thank you very much. Have a good night. >> Next on the agenda, 7:05, our public hearing on 17 Worcester Drive. If you are a part of that project, please raise your hand.
>> I got him. I'm letting her in. I'm letting him in. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. Okay, we have two promoted. >> All right, I'm here. Great. Um, all right, I'm ready to go. Uh, if you all are,
>> go ahead. >> All right, so for the record, my name is Nathaniel. I'm with Stansky McNary and we are representing the project at 17 Worester Drive and I will put the plan on the screen right now. Um, Elsa Milvit.
>> Okay. So, uh, the purpose of this meeting is to obtain, um, local upgrade approvals as well as waiverss to local regulations for the replacement of a septic system. Uh, so the lot at 17 Worcester Drive is a very small lot that contains a single family house. Um, so
you know, the dark outline is the property boundary. The house sits actually partially over the lot line. Um, and this is a very small lot. It is uh 40 by 100. So the total lot area is only uh 4,000 ft². And then there are
wetlands located offsite to the rear. And the 100 foot buffer zone, which I'm hovering my cursor over now, takes up basically the uh almost the entire site. Um the existing septic system consists just of a cess poolool located off of the side of the property right here. Um
so it is in need of replacement and being upgraded with uh a fully designed and as compliant as possible uh septic system. So uh first constraint uh of course is the wetlands. Uh so it's necessary to locate the leech field uh
at least 50 ft away uh from the edge of wetlands as that is the um title 5 setback. So we did soil testing in this open part of the lot right here. Um and just to kind of highlight other features. So the house um sits like I said uh basically along the lot line and
there's a bit of a driveway and a walkway that comes down and then everything is pretty much cleared and lawn just up until almost the edge of the property line. There's a few mature trees and then a wall. This is all good open space. Pretty much the only spot we really are able to place a system on
this lot. Um so fortunately we got um a hole dug passing park. Um so the spot qualifies. Um, so the leechfield is located here and then because the leechfield kind of takes up all of this available area, the sepic tanks have to go further back on the lot. Uh, so the
tank and the pump chamber. Um, despite that, we are still able to hold more than 25 ft to the edge of wetlands as that is the uh again the title 5 setback. Um, so just to talk a little bit about the leechfield. Uh so because
the leechfield is located within uh within 100 ft of a wetland, it is uh regulation 34 in the bylaw that requires that uh there's a basically a secondary treatment unit uh that is part of the system. So in order to accomplish that,
the septic tank is proposed to have a microfast uh.5 unit. Um so the microfast unit is a uh a remedial use approved um secondary treatment unit and it fulfills uh that regulation 34 which allows us to
place the leechfield within 100 ft of the wetland. Um and by the way um just because I'm realizing I skipped over it. Uh this is an existing one-bedroom house with only three rooms. Like I said uh very tiny. So, the design flow for this
system is a two-bedroom design flow, and we are um basically requesting that we are conditioned with putting a deed restriction on the home. The reason for that is that title 5 designates that any single family house is a minimum of three bedrooms, but you're allowed to
reduce that to two bedrooms with a deed restriction. Given the very very small size of this lot, the fact that it only has three rooms, one physical bedroom, uh we felt that this uh was an appropriate request. So it's size for two bedrooms and honestly we would not really be able to fit much more on here
anyway. Um so the leechfield is um designed with a perk rate uh drip dispersal system. Um the reason that we have chosen that particular uh technology for the leechfield is because it allows for a very small footprint. Um the use
approval allows you to reduce the um the square footage of of area provided by 50%. Um also because it is just a a tubing system. Um it does not take up a lot of vertical space. Um that combined
with uh the fast system that's being used allows us to hold a uh twoft reduction to the water table. And that's something that is allowed because um of the fact that we're using a secondary treatment unit and because this is a
repair or replacement system. So the purpose of that is to reduce uh what I will talk about is as the first waiver we are asking for which is a waiver to Littleton's regulations which is regulation 23 fill requirements that there is no fill placed within 10 ft of
a property line. Uh there is it does fit mostly within the grade but the grade does have to be raised up particularly along the back edge of it which is well within 10 ft of the property line. Um I believe the closest point that the fill comes is around 4 ft but we're asking for a waiver from the local rules for
the fill within 10 ft of a property line. And then the uh local upgrade approvals that we are requesting from title 5 are uh despite all the constraints only relating to setbacks to property lines. So for the leech fields
we're holding um 6 1/2 ft to the side property line. We're maintaining the front setback and we are calling out a six-foot setback to the foundation, but the use approval for a park right uh for the drip fields allows you to hold 5 ft
to a foundation. So, we do not need um any special approval to hold that because it is allowed by the use approval. And then um under the same um LUA, we're asking for a minimum a minimum sorry of 5 1/2 ft from the
septic tank/p pump chamber to the property line. Specifically, the pump chamber is positioned 5 and 1/2 ft to the property line and the septic tank is positioned 7 1/2 ft to the property line. We were able to hold both of them at least 10 ft to the foundation and
also like I said uh 25 ft to the edge of wetland. So those particular setbacks in relation to the tanks are all set. Um just for a little bit of uh additional background, we have gone to one um conservation commission meeting. Um I think a few weeks back at this point um
they did not have any overall issues with the design and the placement and my assessment was that they seem to agree that everything uh that we're basically doing the best we can. They have no major issues. Um they did not approve because they prefer to approve after a board of health is approved. Um our next
meeting with them is the next available meeting in about two weeks I believe. Um my anticipation is that they're going to be um fine with it given that uh the waiverss are granted and that this board is fine with it. Um so I think I have uh talked enough. I could go into more
detail about anything if you want but um I believe I hit all the major points. So thank you and I'll hand it back to the chair. >> Thank you for your presentation. Uh Francis, your summary that was extremely thorough. Um the only thing I'll add is um I did talk
to the conservation agent um about the site and the design and they felt it was a thoughtful approach to placing the system given the uh bordering wetlands. >> All right, questions from the board. Kevin Davis. >> Um uh board correct me if I'm wrong. If
we're within uh we have a 10-ft property or from foundation to leeching field um that's been our hold I'm pretty sure. Correct me if I'm wrong board >> Dan M. I think that's been under title
five, but it sounds like this system does not require the 10 foot. I would have to double check. >> Um, so it is title five. Um, but under the remedial use, they're they're
granted that right to be able to do that amount of feet. So right but then I thought because of that that they can reduce the thing that we've required other implementations before to have an impermanentable barrier between the
house foundation and the leeching field. >> Oh sorry I misunderstood your question. Okay. >> Is that correct? Um the only barrier that we recommended
was um at the end of the driveway. I know we've I know we've reviewed other plans and we've requested that a impermanental barrier be placed between the house and the leeching field or anything else. I remember specifically
asking that or am I not remembering correctly, Dan or Matt? >> No, no, I that's what I recollect as well. It's it's not a town change that we have. It's just title 5 says 10 ft. Correct. But Nathaniel, were you saying that that type of leech field that is
going in there >> has some additional features that allows Title 5 to not have the 10 ft? >> Yes. So actually I um I am familiar with the protocol that uh Kevin is describing. Uh if we were proposing a um
conventional system or uh anything similar that close to the foundation, it has been standard practice in the past to put an impervious barrier in between those two things. Um my understanding with uh the way that it would work here is that because the uh use approval
allows for 5 ft to a foundation and that is in the perk rate um use approval um that approval is not conditional on providing um a barrier in between. So, I'm not aware of any um of anything that would uh require that in terms of
regulation goes outside of um boardtoboard preference, which may also be what you're um getting into. But the, you know, >> the use approval lets you go just 5 ft from the drip tubing to the foundation. >> Right. >> So, I thought there was I thought there
was a Sorry to interrupt. I thought there was a board preference, Dan, Matt, Francis, that if you're within the 10-ft area that we put an imperous barrier between the h, you know, living structures.
>> We have we have that in the past, but I'm not sure if it's for this combination of this system and and I mean, we've had Okay. I thought we had it even for a presby system. I didn't think it was for a traditional I don't remember that detail well enough
as to when we've decided to do that or not. >> Nor do I. Francis, do you remember? >> Um, I don't remember any other cases since I've been here, but the 21 Lakeshore Drive that we looked at at the
last meeting that had a barrier because it was within a setback to the foundation. Exactly. That's that's what I thought too. >> Uh can I ask was it was what was was the technology for the leashfield was it a presby? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So what I what I would offer is that um I probably would have proposed something like that under these circumstances just based on my own experience. But um I I in my opinion at least because we're
meeting um what the use approval allows um that we I in my opinion at least that extra uh level of protection would not be necessary for this type of system because they've allowed up to 5T up as
little as a 5ft setback um with no need for a variance or any there's nothing tied to it. Basically, you can just place it that close. Um, and that that's what the use approval allows. So, the use approval for um a presby
does not let you do that. That you still have to hold the 10 foot set back. So, if we were asking for >> what system what system are you using that magically allows what system is this? >> So, this is a perk rate drip disposal system. I can try to bring up the use approval
quickly if I'm able to, but >> yeah, I don't I I don't know if I have ever seen that system presented to us. So, >> this has never come up before. So, yeah, if you have a citation for that, that'd be great. A quick >> It's a It's a rare one. It's a rare one,
that's for sure. Yeah, they're very >> title does not include this. So it would be a separate citation making exception of title five for this. So >> yeah, I was going to say this isn't even in the title. This is this isn't one of the called out systems in title 5, is it not, Francis? This is a different this is a new novel system, which I know
title 5 allows new novel to come in, but I don't think this is one of the calledout systems. Or am I wrong on that? >> I'm not familiar enough with these systems to know it. I can do you mind if I answer that question?
>> Go ahead. >> So, Title 5 doesn't list out alternative septic systems. So, Title 5 predates the existence of a lot of these systems. So, Title 5 does not call it a Presby, but you use them because Mass D gives an approval a separate approval for it.
>> Right. So yeah, this is >> if you have the documentation though from the state because we're we're searching and not seeing it didn't pull it up or share it. So I'm not sure if he has seen this. >> I'm hunting hunting is out right now. Uh
>> I am not seeing anything in the D that shows the system from what I did a quick search. >> Okay, I found it. Um if if you don't mind me sharing it on the screen. So this Yep. Just to reference it. Um this is the uh
department D approval for remedial use uh for the perkate drip disposal system and that um that's what we're providing here. Um so basically when they go through um the use approval similar to how presby works they list out um
conditions and things it allows. So it's actually this right here under G. >> Yes. Could you go to number 10 that follows those things so we can actually see what it says? >> Yep. system includes the following. Okay. >> And then that same one calls out that
you cannot put it under a paved surface or parking lot. >> Reading. Could you zoom in a little bit so that those with distinguished eyes can read? >> I can go all the way down to the particular one, but
5T. In addition, no planting or soil excavation shall be done in or within 5 ft of the drip disposal. The system may be designed to allow for installation of drip tubing up to 5 ft from up to 5 ft
from a building cellar wall. Okay. So, there's more here. >> So, you can't do anything on the top of this. You can't disturb the soil. You
can't touch it. >> More or less. >> So, we've had other things like this before. What's in front of this? >> Uh, I can go back to the plan. So, a edge of the parking area and then per uh
the review uh recommendations, we're going to propose boulders in front of that >> so that cars don't go over it. >> Yep. >> Yep. You have boulders. >> Yep. Okay. And because this is taking up such a large portion, how are you going to make
sure that the homeowner knows and future homeowners know that you're not going to do anything over the top of this? >> Yep. I mean, that's that's a very good question. Um, so like uh many alternative systems, um, this one and
also the fast system require um a deed notice. So um it's something that's written directly into the property deed. um alerting them to the type of system that it is um where required as I have um already given the um use approval and
any any like handbook or homeowner um documents to the owner. I provide them to the current owner. Um per that um per affidavit in the deed restriction that is signed, they're required to alert the next owner of the type of system um that
they have. So, you know, uh short of them being required to be aware of it and it being uh deed restriction on the property, alerting them to the type of system it is, those are the measures that are in place. Um like with any system, ultimately it is up to the um
homeowner to execute that and take care of a system just like they would have to uh for any system. And also um >> is there is there does there have to be a maintenance agreement with the system? I was just about to I was just about to say yes. Uh so that's another thing. Um
I I the expectation normally I would um um is that they would be um provided to supply um the health office. So Francis with the a maintenance contract um set up for the required inspections. Um I
believe that he's already alerted me to that um in an email in the past. Um, so that'll be something that has to be done before a uh COC is issued. >> We also list it in the permit in the COC as well, so if anybody looks back on it.
>> Okay. And did you see the deed restrictions, Francis? >> Um, I'm not sure if I did, but it's the standard D template. >> Okay. And even the deed restriction for like a two-bedroom. So, we have the deed restriction set up for to only be a
two-bedroom. >> I don't know if we got it yet, but um he didn't mention it ahead of time. Um so once that's recorded, we would save that as well. >> Yeah, we haven't imposed anything on the property yet, but uh because we're
waiting for um approval first, we get approval. Uh and then that's after that is when and between that and the start construction is when those get placed on the property. >> Yeah. So we would hold the permit for construction until we receive all
documentation basically. >> Okay. I don't have any further questions. >> Very good. That was a good question. >> Sorry. >> I think you only had one technically. All right. >> No. >> Thank you, Kevin. That was important. Uh Dan Kane, any questions? Uh actually I
think um Kevin with his one question hit most of the other questions I had. So that was a good scatter gather. So >> no no this is good. Um and and I let me apologize to Nathaniel that yeah this is uh a different design different project
for us. I apologize that we weren't uh more fully fully prepared for for new systems. So, for for my part anyway, I apologize for that. But thank you for being articulate and being able to pull up that approval for >> Of course. That's quite all right. I love talking about this stuff as you can tell.
It's a rare one. I've only I've uh it doesn't come up often, but we felt uh it was necessary for >> a 40 foot wide lot with a Yeah. >> Yeah. I have no questions. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh and I don't think I have
any further questions. Just a couple points just to make sure you got it. Um, I think it's that that no planting within five feet that really kind of like raises eyebrows for this board. And so is that language the thing you're saying that goes into the deed so it's
really clear because that's the thing we worry about for the future homeowners. Sure, everybody's got a piece of paper, but is that kind of called out? >> So to my knowledge, I don't know that it's um literally called out word for word like that. I mean, um I'm sure
there's a way to do it. The um deed restriction itself alerts you to the type of system it is and it I I think that it references the use approval number in the deed restriction which ties to the document I brought up that
lists all those things. Um I don't know if it's normal to have a thing that gets signed that literally says I will not plant a shrub within 5 ft of my system. um if you know something additional is needed you know I am sure we'd be open to it but um you know as far as these
things go have uh as far as the deed restriction looks like at least it like I say calls out the technology at large due to the fact that it's there it references that document I had um and it's a standard template like Francis was saying um so there's really no manipulation that we normally do beyond
that >> um okay if Francis if you could just kind of explore or if there's anything about this system that we can help help future homeowners with. Just whatever you can do to kind of make it clear. Um I think most people know to you know ideally don't drive over your leaf field
but this one seems to be a little more uh detailed in terms of what the what the requirements are. Um and then >> the abutters one sec >> pardon Francis. >> U say I think we can do an addendum to the restriction so that it's documented.
>> Okay. Awesome. Um, >> and also, um, Nathaniel, if you wouldn't mind sending over to our health department that copy of that approval, that would be really helpful. So that >> we don't have to go archaeologically dig for that document.
>> That's all right. I will. It does take a while to find. You have to Google the right things. Go to the right page on the DP website. So, >> and then because of the fill in the lot line, the abutters were properly notified. >> Yep. And I uh I'll let Francis confirm,
but I supply the mailing receipts. >> Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to discuss this? Please raise your hand, no feedback from the audience. Uh, I have no further questions
and we'll just have to remember that it was asking about local upgrade approval. Um, but we want to make sure we add the strings to the deed restriction that were discussed. So yeah, we want to make sure that the deed restriction for a two-bedroom is
there as well as future plantings and making sure that the rocks boulders are positioned appropriately between the driveway and in front of that in the deed restriction because that is very important. We can entertain a motion. I'll make a motion that we grant the
variance for fill within 10 ft of the property line for um a decrease of set back from 10 ft to 5.5 ft from the property line for the septic tank and
pump chamber and 6.5 ft from soil absorption system to the property line as well as requiring deed restrictions for a two-bedroom system with notification for um a barrier between the the leeching field and the parking
area and the planting notification within 5 ft of the leeching field. I think that's everything >> and that is a correct statement and I second. Nice job. >> Motion. We have a motion a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Davis.
>> Kevin Davis votes yes. >> Dan Kane. >> Dan Kane votes yes. Matt way votes yes. >> Thank you for your presentation. Thanks for educating us tonight on something new. >> Of course. Yeah, it was very fun. Thank you all very much >> and good luck with that shoe horn. >> Thank you. Have a nice one.
>> See you. >> That brings us to our 710 agenda item discussion of tobacco regulation updates. Francis all entity. >> Um, so I've been trying to reach Joan um from the Lemonster Tobacco Alliance
because she sent this to me and I want to review it for her with her. Um, she said she's going to be at the meeting and she has not. So, I'm not sure if she changed anything in the document. Um, I know they're really busy this time of year, so
it might be better to postpone it. Um, yeah, I'd really like to try to get this in. Um, why don't we go ahead and review it at least see what was there because I do remember some of the changes that were there. Um, but then we
may have to have that second meeting next month so that way we can get this through because we need to do the appropriate notifications and all that kind of good stuff. So, >> yeah, it'll basically need a month lead
time uh to post. Yeah, agreed. >> Were there specific things that this board needed to still discuss and decide? >> Yeah, there was I So, the last time that we were here, we needed to talk about the smoking bar ads and then this
particular language. There were some numbers and things like that that needed to go into the document itself. And since we hadn't seen the final document to kind of look at and say, "Yay, verily, this is good to go." Um that's kind of where I wanted to go with
it and then there was the timing of announcing it and getting it through all the rest of that. So >> well yeah I knew that >> right so hence we may have the second meeting of the you know next what is it it's April it's almost April so we would
have two meetings in April to go over this and then have enough time so we can get it in Okay. So, Francis, are you willing to share the document so we can take a look at it? >> Sure. Thank you.
And thanks Matt for helping out tonight. I'm a little limited in my ability to pull documents up tonight. Can everybody see Mhm. Yeah. Right. This was their This is kind of like their checklist for it. And we were
looking through that. Yeah. This is all kind of there. And then if we keep going. >> But is it the only one that says highly recommend adding that we have to make sure we've added it down below because it said everything else says incurren incurren incurren incurrent. Right.
>> Yeah. I think that's what it is. And then there were some numbers and things like that that needed to go in. So part of the issue um was that the posted version that we have from 2018 was not the most current approved one.
There was another version in 19, but we can't find a set of it. So, Joanne was able would be able to fill in the numbers of what's already on the record that she does during inspections. >> So, the 19 isn't in E360. >> No. Um, somewhere along the way, um,
something got dropped. So, nobody has a copy. Not even our alcohol and tobacco or tobacco person. >> Our tobacco person knows cuz she was doing um the inspections in 19 and she
was at the hearings when it was updated, >> but it's not actually >> it's not actually codified any place. >> Correct. Yep. >> So, it's really not it may have been approved, but it doesn't really exist anywhere. So, it really is not enforceable if it's not in our if town
clerk doesn't have it and it's not in E360 and it's not in our minute. I'm hoping it's in our minutes, but if it's not in any of those places, then just because we approved it, there's no actual documentation of the 2019 >> correct >> regulations. So, therefore, we don't have 2019 regulations.
I'm I'm cons I only bring it up because I'm concerned if she is enforcing something from memory and there's no documentation out of any of it that anything we've enforced that was not in the 17 that was in the 19 since 19
could be a problem. I'm not sure what we've enforced that wasn't in the 17 that was in the 19 because we don't know what was in the 19. But >> yeah. So, so Francis, is this document that we're looking at then the 2019
version or no, an older version? >> This is the current, this is the current version, the one that we want to go to, Matt. So this would be the 2008 version with red lines that were added to meet the 2026 model language.
>> Okay. Yeah. So it it originally is not a brand new document. It's originally our 2018. >> Yes. >> Okay. So the question is, were there changes between our 2018 document they have your hands on and the potential 2018 document
that we don't know what it looks like that we don't want to lose those changes? Is that part of the point? >> No, I don't think >> I was going to say I think when we were there when we were talking with her, she said this is what it should look like according to the 2026 regs. So I think
even even if there are changes or whatever, this is appropriate for 26 that we're trying to vote on now. That was my understanding. >> So >> yes, it's been added to for the 2026, >> right, >> editions. Yes. >> So whether or not we have that or not,
this is an accumulation of all of those things to just say here it is. I understand your point would be, if I'm understanding you correctly, is that we may need to change something like one of the colors
to show it's changing from what we have currently in the EGV site, but as far as language goes, it's for the 26. Is that that's my understanding. Is that correct, Francis? >> Yes. All language would be for 26 added.
>> Okay. So, we're So, okay. All right. Do we want to go board? Do we want to go through the rest of it just really quickly so that way we can at least see what she's proposing? Yes. No. >> Sure. >> Sure. I I my only question is I thought
we've been through this before. So, are there is there an area that we still don't know or is this document different enough from the one I know she went through one last time, but th but this board didn't but this board did go through a document line by line. Is that
one too different now than what we're looking at? So I I I think we're asking lots of questions and I think what we're what I'm understanding is that this is the version that we going to eventually vote on when we have, you know, get it, you
know, when she's here to present it because I want to make sure that that's what's there. We have to worry about the smoking bar aspect of it to make sure that language is in there as well. I understand the overview has it, but there were even things that were in the document last time we said, "Oh, we were
going to change this. we were going to change that. So, I wanted to go through and make sure that those changes were incorporated into that document. That was my point. >> And I'm asking is the one that this board spent time going line by line a different document than this? So, we are kind of back and we need to go line by
line or we're just get able to check a couple key areas. That's what I'm trying to figure out. >> Francis, >> um I think it' only be a couple of areas at most. Um it should be pretty much the same. >> Okay, then let's go through it.
So again, I'm looking for those color highlights call outs. Francis, are we seeing or is this >> document void of those? >> Nope. Highlights are in here. >> Okay. Okay. And those green ones are fine for
what that was. Okay, I'm good with this. Okay. Okay. Is this definition for the electronic nicotine delivery system? Is that consistent with what the state is providing as a definition? It would be from the state. Yes. Yellow
should be yellow should be pullins, >> right? Yeah. Yeah, that's that's what I thought. I just wanted to double check. >> Okay, keep going. Yeah. Yeah. I know we talked a lot about the whole healthc care facility, what is, what
isn't. >> That I still had some kind of I thought it was worded oddly like that last that top green line there. um optitionian, optometric, hearing, aiology, not subject to the board of registration and pharmacy. Well, none of those things
would be anyway. Um they'd fall under optometry or optition like so there's different boards regulating those ones. So I'm just it for it read kind of like if you have those things and a pharmacy.
No, it's not if it's I apologize. So I can be an optitian and sell tobacco because I'm not regulated by the board of registration and pharmacy. But someplace else, I think we talked about them as healthcare
as there was some internal validity vagaries I think between that sentence and there was another one someplace else that it just it read potentially conflicting. Could you couldn't you? >> That was I think that was farther down.
Th this is the this is the a Costco with an optician in the building doesn't qualify as a healthcare institution. It qualifies as a commercial retailer of tobacco products. >> Yeah. >> It happens to have the other but you can't give up. >> It's it's trying to help the retail
establishment that's not a healthcare institution. That's what that >> but offer but offers healthcare. >> Correct. So, if I if I happen to sell soda and I'm an optitian, then I can sell cigarettes. If I don't have a soda
vending machine in my optitian's office, then I'm not a retail establishment and now I can't. >> Yeah. If if you're a convenience mark that has an optitian next in inside, then you're a retail establish. If you're an optitian trying to sell things, you're no longer a retail
establishment. >> Okay. So, this is why like the whole CVS opened up a convenience store because they could be open on Sundays under the old blue laws and then that's >> okay. >> This is this is the BJ's exception.
>> Okay. I'm I I I know that's the intent, but can that intent be something else? At what point do I go from being an optician's office to being a retail establishment to being able to sell cigarette? Not that I expect the typical optometrist to also want to sell
cigarettes, but at what point does that that line go from, you know, is is a soda vending machine in my lobby meet that requirement? Is a rack of candy? It's just or do we care? I don't think I really care that much.
It's just that whole it's we're trying to carve out one thing for one place that doesn't apply to us at the moment. But where that line is because it does it does read odd. >> It's she I this is this was the this was
the you know Sam's, BJ's, Costco um escape clause. >> Correct. I think it's just whatever comes first. If you open a healthcare office and then try to convert it to convenience store, you're a healthcare office first. If you open a retail store
and then try to add healthcare services to it, then I guess that's the loophole potentially. But some committee somewhere is going to have a saying how you're how you're shifting that business. Just trying to plan ahead for my
business to make sure I have the candy machine before I get my license to practice. You need to you need to have an empty office that only has vending machines and then add everything else into your office. Okay, let's keep going.
Unless you have more. No. Okay, keep moving. >> Keep scrolling. Be scrolling. Okay, remind me the green is for local >> green highlighted sections are uniquely
local policy decisions local. Those are on the above checklist to be made by the board of health. >> Correct. And we we included all of the above. >> Okay. Keep going. Okay,
these were all in the ones that I remember from the previous time. >> There's the smoking bar. Yep. And that's the lift right from the state. Okay. Pause there for a second. If you would go back up a little bit.
So right here, we used to have I guess the document we looked at in the fall that started this whole conversation was there used to be some
language in that document that was colored blue. Um, but this is one area where it said it. Uh sorry I just lost it. One sec after the >> where where it included basically this is no retailer person shall sell
but then it also went on to say or permit products as defined to be sold or not being the individual's parent or legal guardian give tobacco products to. >> What section are you talking about? Cuz I I'm
>> uh D1. >> Oh, got it. >> D1. The old there's our old regulation had five more lines of words there. >> Is it just a simplification? It was it oversp specific and what we're doing is just simplifying it down to
>> Nope. Because like I said it it ended at the comma there. So this this phrase basically says no person no retailer person shall sell. Correct. that shall sell or provide. >> What this what this added was or permit
to be sold or give products to if not the parent or legal guardian. So see those are those are two more spheres. >> Yeah. The permit to be sold is you you
can't give a permit to sell it. And then the third one is if an unrelated if your non-guardian or parent non-guardian non-parent of 21 gives you something then you're then you're you're you're not doing the right thing
as as D1 is written. If I give Nate, my son, who's 17, a cigar to celebrate his high school graduation, then I would be in violation of D1 because there's no exemption for parent
or guardian to a minor. Um, >> is that was that the intent of the language, Matt, that was in the old No, I think it was the restricting of that. Is that right or am I wrong? uh
or not being the individual's parent or legal guardian give tobacco products to a person under the minimum legal sales age. It >> it's I think it's being overly redundant. Like if you look if you think about what it's saying, you don't think so?
>> No, I guess if this says no person shall that one might be covered because it's no person shall provide. No person shall shall provide. Correct. >> No person shall provide. I think the more interesting one is or permit to be
sold. So if a sales clerk sells it in front of the manager, the sales clerk is in trouble per this language, but the manager is not. Whereas with that other language, the manager is now also in trouble because they allowed it to
happen in their business. they directly observed it. So, they get added to that. I I don't know if it's necessary, but I'm just saying that this is this is a part that for some reason that the language, like I said, the document we looked at last time had yellow, had green, had red highlights. This is a
blue text. So, I I just don't know where it came from. So, so what what you're saying is that it should read no retailer person or person shall sell comma provide
comma or permit a tobacco product to a person under 21 years of old. That's that's that would include that sphere that you were just talking about. >> Uh yeah, this says uh or permit to be sold. >> Oh, okay. Permit to be sold. Fine.
whatever that permit language is. >> Yeah. But but this is Francis, if you if you like this is one of those ones like go pull up the document from the fall, it's in there and take it to our friend at the tobacco alliance and see if that
I don't know if it's our language that should be gotten rid of if it's something we were adding. I I don't know where it came from. That's part of my problem. I just know it's a difference between the two documents. >> Oh, no. Sure. I mean, we got this from them, so I'm not sure if something was kept out for some reason.
>> And back then, it was numbered differently. So, that was 224-4, uh, section A. >> This is fun. >> Okay. Thank you for bringing that up, Matt. >> Yeah. And I think that's the only
example in the document of a of a different of that color, so I don't know. >> Well, Mark has a question to follow up. >> Yeah. Okay, we can keep rocking the here then. >> Yeah, let's keep rocking it. >> Do Do we want the parental carve out?
>> I'm just putting it out there. Just asking the question. >> I So putting public health hat on, which is our primary hat, I would say that that's a bad thing for a person to consume. So I think we're generally trying to stop
that. That would be my opinion. Um I I guess it was like religious exemptions or anything else because it's rare. There's not a lot but there are some who tobacco smoke is part of religious practice. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And again I I'm I'm just want to make sure that we don't have I I don't know. I'm I'm good either way. I'm just just asking the question, I guess, of >> So Francis, take a note on that one. that would that would be something we might want to check with. >> I don't necessarily see us ever
enforcing it even if it's cuz it's not it's not so much a proactive saying, but I'm I'm just asking. >> I I appreciate the ask. I think it's the right thing to ask. >> All right, let's keep going.
And then in uh at the start of B and C here, that's where the question it did say um all smoking bars and adult only retail tobacco. >> Yeah, this is Yeah.
>> So, do we do we not care about that not being called out there? >> No, I actually do care because I think that's where the I think that's where the enforcement comes in. or are we generally pervitting? I thought we were going to prohibit bars
in smoking bars in general. So, this is retail signage. Like, if you go up, this is section two for retail signage, >> correct? >> If we're if we're going to say no smoking bar, then it doesn't make then it really shouldn't have
>> then >> Yeah, skip it. >> That's what I would say. We're we're going to say no to a smoking bar. So, if we're going to say notom smoking bar, then allowing them to have signage is kind of like why.
Okay. >> So, I'll just note it as a follow-up item. I think we need to know it as a follow-up item because it might because C there I'm reading through C again and adult only retail that allow for on-site consumption of tobacco pressure post signage. I'm like yeah there it is. It's
like smoking. Yeah, we got to make sure the smoking bar thing is not there. Keep going. Okay. >> Sales permit. No retailer or person shall otherwise to distribute or offer for sale products as defined here in town blah blah blah
with a only owners of establishments with a permanent indoor non-mobile location in Littleton hide for a permit and sell tobacco products. It says sell, not consume.
Yeah. Okay. >> I'm good with that, guys. Are you good with that? Hold up here. >> There there was one uh between four and five >> which was
>> one sec between the fee. Which one starts with a separate permit? Okay, that's four. So there used to be one that said tobacco product sales permit is non-transferable. Is that am I missing it over here
>> or did it get moved somewhere else? Scroll down a little bit. Just see if it's because it's in this section. Maybe there's another number. >> No, >> no. Oh, wait. Sale of permit, sale of business, cap total number of permit holders, blah blah blah blah blah. The
permit. >> This all looks the same. This all looks line by line the same is what I'm looking at. Okay. So, there's a there's an one. Okay. Scroll back up. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, Francis. >> Before the one that says, "Siss issuance of a tobacco product sales permit shall be conditioned." Right. That one. Yeah,
that's number five. So, there was a section that says, "A tobacco product sales permit is non-transferable. A new owner of an establishment that sells tobacco products is defined in must apply for a new permit. No new permit will be issued unless and until all outstanding penalties incurred
by the previous permit holder are satisfied in full. That's kind of a double whammy. We won't transfer it to you, but if they have a problem, you've got to fix the problem first. >> Kind of makes sense for me to This kind of makes sense from establishing a new LLC.
>> You go from one LLC to the next LLC. I think we need to take note of that and say where did that go? >> And that one is going to be section 224-5 bullet e
section H >> depending on what you're looking at. >> Okay, I'll skim through it. Yeah. Here's the school boundaries. each other. >> Say a little business.
>> The second one. Make sure we we're missing a number in B. >> What in B? >> Location within feet. Second line. Got it. >> Nice catch.
>> I don't know what it the prior >> we need to we need to make sure that's that was one of the things that we caught the last time. So >> it's it said for example 1,00 2,000 3,000 but there was no I don't think it was a recommendation. It was just a blank spot. B. Hold on one second. Nine. Sale of
business notwithstanding the cap number hold the seller of a business not withholding valid may transfer said permit to a bonafide purchaser for value of the business subject to the board of health as required herein. The retailer shall transfer the 30 days transfer the permit before you know approval. And
then here's C. All fines and suspensions. So sale of business is what that insert that you were talking about before. >> That's that's also in this document. So I'm not sure if they're conflicting language and one should be removed and the other one kept. I'm not sure. Um
this feels a little bit opposite cuz this kind of makes it sound like the seller of business may transfer the permit whereas the original just white unhighlighted language said it's non-transferable. So, it looked like maybe the one I'm looking at had a
conflict, but which one is the the way to go? >> All right. So, that's probably the more accurate question, Francis. >> I mean, if green is the stuff that's a local polity policy decision, but the thing I'm looking at is shaded in just
like standard text, I feel like that that the standard text was part of our 2018, which was it's non-transferable. Whereas this says it seems like it is transferable. And as I read the language of the other one, it had some hooks in it of if there
are outstanding penalties incurred by the previous permit holder, you don't get you do not get it transferred until that's taken care of. And that language does not show up here under sale of business. Wait, it's red. >> Well, there is C. Sorry. >> It's C. All fines and suspensions of
previous owner must be satisfied prior to the sale. So, it's there. >> Yeah. >> So, unless there's something else. So, we got the transfer. Is a transfer of a business technically a sale of the business. Francis, that would be
>> I I think that I think the awkward thing here is that >> if you if you don't allow the the permit to be transferred, then somebody on the waiting somebody like on a waiting list could basically come in and swoop the permit away from your sales tax, which
does not make sense for selling a business. So, I think this is probably the more appropriate language that's printed right here under sale of business. It just makes more sense. Uh, but I was just I say I'm just it was called out both ways on the prior documents. So, >> okay. So, all right. So, we just need
clarification then. It's probably >> Yeah. Okay. >> We just got to decide. I mean, we're the board. So, which one which way do you want to go with? This one or the one say they're non-transferable? >> When What does the one that's missing say specifically, Matt? >> A tobacco product sales permit is
non-transferable. Period. A new owner of an establishment that sells tobacco products as defined here in must apply for a new permit. Then as a wonky thing, no new permit will be issued unless and until all outstanding penalties incurred
by the previous permit holder are satisfied in full. >> All right. So, so notwithstanding a cap on the total number of permit holders, the seller of a business holding a valid may transfer said permit to a bonafide purchaser for valid value of the
business subject. Okay. As required hearing, read the first part of that sentence again. I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me and I can't pull it up. Uh, again, it's the sales permit is non-transferable. A new owner of an
establishment must apply for a new permit. That's the difference. This is not applying for a new permit. This is I bought the business. You're handing the permit over. The board of health still gets to approve it, but you
haven't lost the permit tied to the business. Whereas in the one I'm reading, you cannot transfer it. If you sell your business, that permit is technically gone and the new owner of the business must start at square one and apply for a permit to sell.
>> So, I think the first one if you I I hear what you're saying. So, let's let's be specific about it. So, not worrying about the cap. So, let's just do that. The seller of a business holding a valid tobacco sales permit may transfer said permit to the
new purchaser subject to the approval of the board of health. So, isn't that the same thing that you were just talking? It's like you have to apply for it. >> Uh, no. I assume the application process is something more than just subject to approval. I don't know what subject to approval means,
>> Francis. essentially if they have their licenses in place from the state. >> So that means all they we would that means we would still need to approve it though. >> We would. Yes. >> So whether or not they submit another
application, it we would still have to have the approval even if they're transferring it from one to the next. >> We require the new owner to apply for a new permit. basically >> is that >> that's not what this language says.
>> It's No, it's I'm I'm hearing both of them and I agree the language isn't clear. I think we need to look at what our existing process is that okay I'm buying you know XYZ convenience store with a tobacco
license what are what is our current process is it automatic I do paperwork I pay my thing and I get it as part of my new as purchasing the business board of health is it a rubber stamp is this what is the difference
between the process to transfer and the process to apply for a new. If those are similar, then I think we've clean up our language. If the process is different, then we need to figure out what do we
want to see as that process. Um, you know, my approach is a transfer is a bit of a rubber stamp as long as you've paid your things. That if okay, so I'm a bad actor. I've lost my permit to sell tobacco here in Littleton because I've
been a bad actor. So, I sell my XYZ convenience store and I buy Matt's ABC convenience store who has a tobacco license and I transfer in and guess what? I'm back in the tobacco business after losing my last one. If that process is a bit of a I've paid my state
revenue thing and I'm as a transfer is that approval process like what does that look like compared to I'm assuming a new person would we look at the history same as we would for not within our scope. I I I'm curious to see what our process is for liquor licenses, um,
both sale and distribution, and how do they look? So, if I buy a restaurant and I with a liquor license, what does that look like for that transfer process? Does it come automatically with the business as long as I'm I meet the basic criteria? I'm over 21.
I got so much insurance coverage, whatever it is. um you know, same for a liquor store or a package store or you know, convenience store with a license, whatever that is. I guess I'm I'm not sure if we want to maybe align those a little bit so it's consistent cuz they're similar, but I agree this
language isn't really clear. It's transfer versus not versus new. I agree that the language is odd. Applying for new, but having to pay previous owners fee, you know, outstanding. That's that's weird. If I'm applying for new, then I'm applying for new and that the
history of that license shouldn't have anything to do with me if I'm applying for new. If I'm transferring it, I would agree going, you know, same like taking over somebody's car payments. I'm responsible for their car payments, you know, so that I I I think we just need to clean that up and make sure it makes
sense and make sure the process between transfer and new >> is similar enough that we can make sure that we're catching potentially bad actors. If if I'm not saying there are, but that's we want to make sure that we have that option if it comes up. >> Yeah. >> No, I I think the language is I think
the language is fine here. I'm okay with most of this. I think it Yeah, it creates a little bureaucracy cuz we do have to figure out what that transfer because it says apply for the transfer. So, that's a process that you can make that then you're checking all of those boxes. Anyways, it was just distinctly
different language than what's right above it in the other document where you can't do this transfer thing and then you potentially lose lose access to cell because if you then are a new applicant, you could be told no, we're not allowing any new new facilities in town and you
could actually lose it, which would I think be like I said pretty unfair to a business. Um, and then the third bullet is a little interesting because this one says all fines and suspensions of the previous owner must be satisfied prior to the sale. And I
>> is that within our realm of enforcement that we can say you can't sell a business until that happens? I >> because the other language said all fines and suspensions basically must be satisfied before you can activate your
light this this transferred permit. I I would read I would read it doesn't read that way but I would agree that that should be the intent that we don't care you can sell your business that has nothing to do with us but before the transfer of a permit yes they need to be fines if there are
outstanding fines or application fees that have never been paid those need to be brought up but that is around ours piece which is the permit we can't control the sale and we shouldn't try to control the sale but the permit is yes >> yeah so all fines and suspensions of the previous owner must be satisfied ified
prior to the transfer of the permit. >> That makes more sense. It means you can get hosed in the end if the new owner's like, I decide not to get the permit. You lose those fines you never got. >> Right. And then the other agreed. And then the other thing it sounds like and
on a there needs to be a reconciliation between the word sale and transfer cuz I think I think what you're saying is there's no you can't transfer it period. >> No, I'm okay with the fact that you
could transfer. I was say I'm just calling out that the other bullet said specifically said non-transferable transferable. That's all. >> No, I I get what you're saying. I to I totally get what you're saying. >> I think you want to be able to transfer it. >> I'm not saying that you don't want to be able to transfer. What I'm trying what
I'm trying to get at is why is why was the language there previously? And I think that's what we're getting at. And if we don't know then, you know, does this address what we're trying to do? And I think that's what we're trying to do is
saying, hey, you can transfer it as part of the sale, but you're still subject to the board of health review approval. And I think that's what we want. I I it's we're injecting ourselves into
the transfer of the permit. So, okay, because we're the we are in the business of issuing said permits and making sure you're doing all the right things. That's our That's your golden ticket. It has to come from us. And we
can we have 12 of those golden tickets according to 10 A by the way. >> 10 A. >> And so if if business ABC has golden ticket number two and business def wants
to come in, ABC is the selling of the business wants to transfer that to DEF. That's what A is talking about. And I think B is exactly. The purchaser shall apply for the transfer of the
permit no later than 30 calendar days and the purchaser shall not sell tobacco products until the transfer of the permit is approved by the board of health. So I think that's the you shall not transfer it is yeah you can transfer it. you got to apply for that's that's I
think what Francis was talking about the application of that is happening so that's the process part Dan so it's saying within 30 days golden ticket number two ABC uh DEF has to go
apply for a new one and oh by the way until we approve it you can't sell anything and At that point, we could say, "Buyer of DEF, sorry, we're not going to transfer it to you." Now,
and oh, and A takes care of the cap. So, if we have all 12 tickets occupied and they want to sell it, they can't. If we have a 13th person in line, it has to go to the 13th person. >> No, this is a transfer. That's the
point. That's that was the call that I'm saying is that if you allow a transfer, the person who's in number 13 is still waiting. If you force them to apply as a new applicant, yeah, they're kicked out of line. 13 sneaks in. And I don't think
that's the right >> choice for managing businesses. Not that I like smoking at all, but that that just seems like the wrong business approach to doing this. That's why it's not new. Unlike 10A where if you let it
expire and don't renew in time, you are out of the line and you go back to the end, >> right? >> And you could get usurped by somebody else. >> Or what if 5 years down the road our cap is reduced from 12 to 10.
I would see it as if the 11th business is sold and transferring their their permit. It's still be there's still number 11 because they're grandfathered in. It's not a new permit. >> Yeah, that that might be a problem.
>> That's why it says notwithstanding a cap on the >> I understand. I understand. Notwithstanding a cap on the total number of So notwithstanding a cap. What is that telling me? I don't care what the cap is. You're We've reduced it to 10. You're number 11.
Okay. I don't care about the cap. the se the seller. Okay. So, they can still do the transfer at that point, >> right? >> Right. >> Which again, I think is the fair thing to do for the business? >> Yes. But is that what we want to do for public health?
>> Cuz that's what we that's what we're worried about. Like we went from 12 down to 10 because well, he said too much or whatever. Okay. So, that's the policy that we have to
that we're that we'd have to figure out. Is that same language in another place, Francis, or was that on an old document, Francis? >> I'm not sure off the top of my head. >> Okay. So, we still need to look into that. Let's just say looking into a
because we have to. And the two reasons why was not withstanding the cap. So, if the cap gets reduced and then the other one is okay, I'm still looking for Oh, here it is. Prohibiting
prohibition of smoking bars section F. Is it just one thing? Yep, there it is. Okay, done. So, I don't think so. Let's That goes back to the a about signage. We're proh we're just not we're just prohibiting
it. So, it doesn't matter. you're not going to be able to have signs. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> It's It's one of those just making sure you've got your you know everything straight at both ends because it's again
one of those what if somebody decide to take that out, take out your F right there, but you've lost the language up top in the signage area. >> Yeah. Well, we're just saying >> you put it up in the signage area and then you're covered on both ends no matter what. >> Okay.
little thing. >> No, that's going to do it. Yeah, here's where we're setting the price for cigars. How long has this price been in effect? >> Um, I don't know to be honest. >> I think she said this was the I think
she said this was the price forever. >> Those aren't No, those aren't accurate. I don't think cuz the old one had $5.80. And I thought when she went over this, she rattled off some other numbers that were different, too. We need to double
check the prices. >> Yeah, that's why I'm looking at this going, I don't think that was the right No, I agree with you. All right, so we got to check the prices again. >> So G, I asked her about G during the conversation and I don't think I got the
clearest answer because what G says there is you can't sell pouches higher than this concentration. Correct. Right. >> Yep. Yeah. So in the in the kind of last
draft, this was an or statement. It was either that one or you say the sale of pouches is restricted to adult only retail tobacco stores. And I don't I didn't feel like that was like an A or B choice. That felt like an
apple and an orange to me. So, you're saying there was another statement in there that said adult >> it said the sale or distribution of oral nicotine pouches is restricted to adult only retail tobacco stores. >> Period. And then it's >> instead of this phrase.
>> Oh, >> it was that's what I'm saying. It was an or statement. And I guess it's the we don't we don't have any of the adult only retail tobacco stores. Therefore, we would be effectively
eliminating pouches from town, which seems more restrictive than this one, which says you can sell pouches as long as they're under this concentration, >> which which I believe she recommended that we use this language. I just was curious as to why this weird option. Does
>> this does this also remove the Zins sort of kind of aspect? Francis. >> Um, I I don't know. I don't think so. >> I'll have to make a note.
>> Yeah. And we need to go. And so then does it m are we as a board do we want to have the policy that it can only Did you say it could only be sold in an adult only? Is that what it was?
>> Yeah. So, you can only get them at the adult only retail tobacco store, which is like that's highly restrictive. >> Much more restrictive than this. >> This is Yeah. This is saying any retailer as can sell them that has a
license as long as they're 6 milligram 5.999999 or less. That's what that's that's what this is saying. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, we're allowing anybody to sell
pouches that are that size or less than 6 milligrams per pouch. >> Well, I mean, you still have to be a tobacco retailer. >> No, no, no. It's a It's just not an adult only. >> Tobacco like Yeah, you're correct. That That's That's the delta, right? We're actually going to be able to expand the
the retailers are going to be able to expand into a pouch is essenti we're allowing more nicotine to be put into the market is essentially what we're doing. >> And this is one of those I have I have no idea what our old regulations said if it said anything at all. >> All right, so let's take a note on there
and then let's just move on. We've beaten the crap out of this one. Clear sales rate cigar sales. Again, we already talked about the prices. We need to make sure those are appropriate. >> Yep.
>> Saleflavored no retailer. There it is. Done. Possess, hold, keep. That was the same. That was the enhancement that we had here in town was the possess, hold, and keep. >> Okay. Can't have blunt wrappers.
in a bag. >> You have to go to air to buy them and then you'll be all set. >> Free distribution coupon. >> No retailer or person shall. Okay. So that's just like no out of package sales. The sale or distribution of
tobacco products as defined in form other than original package from factory including the repackaging distribution and no is prohibited. Okay. I want to make sure the word is prohibited. Got it. >> Just we do have a hand up in the
audience. >> Okay. We'll get there in a minute. Um Ma, we just allowed you to talk. If you want to go ahead and talk since your hand was up. Man, are
it should work if we just change it to talking permitted, correct? And they can take themselves off of mute or do we have to play with them as a >> Excuse me. >> That is correct. Okay. >> Are you there, Manu? We gave you
permission to talk, but we can't hear you. Man, in the bottom of the application for Zoom, you should see a microphone. You can get there and uncclick the mute button and you can start to talk. Should we promote them to a panelist?
>> Uh, I'm going to I'm going to send you back and then add a >> I would not do that. This is Dave. >> Yeah, we heard you, Dave. >> They disappeared from the attendees list. >> They did. Okay. Okay.
Uh, all vending machines containing terminator are banned prohibited. Okay. Next. Roll your own machines. Oh, come on. Wait. Go back to that. Go back up. Sorry.
All nonresidential. Okay. Got it. It's in your house. You can do it. All right. Okay. So, the high school can't have it. Thank you. Violations. This is the yellow is lifted right from the state laws. We're just adding the
for two consecutive We're adding the 10 consecutive business days. So the pen the stick um a consistency thing Francis if we're capitalizing two and 10 then 30 needs to be capitalized and see it's just I don't
think two and 10 need to be capitalized is probably the correct approach but sorry Matt my OCD was going off on that one >> I know I'm right there with you little letters >> okay I'm good with those unless anybody
say something. Dan or Matt, I think this was in line with what she talked about last time. Okay. Okay. Keep going. Are these all the new updated rigs and all that kind of good stuff? >> Um, I'm not sure, but these might have
already been in place. All right, let's make sure that these are the appropriate rigs since these are being called out. >> Yeah. >> And also, while we're talking about this, I know we need to once we get the right thing back from our tobacco person, we need to make sure the town
council has reviewed this. >> Okay. Uh, number eight, we're going to be able to do whatever we want if it's one of the following areas. Okay. So, what is what is the letter for section 8A? What's the letter above?
What's the do you know what I mean? What section are we in? >> Yeah. What section are we in? Yeah. Cuz I >> violations and penalties >> is it? Okay. So, violations and penalties. Okay. So, a permitt a permitted issue to this regulation may
be suspended, revoked, or not renewed for any of the following reasons. So, somebody has a violation of any provision of state or local laws and or regulations. So if they're in a if they have a violation
of health code, we can revoke their tobacco sale permit is what this is saying. >> Yep. >> I mean, this is saying if they don't
license their dog, I mean, it's any I Yeah. Now, it's it's May, but I agree that's a it's a potentially a very big stick. You know, it could be that they were selling alcohol to minor and they also have a tobacco permit. Maybe that, you know, they have a consistent alcohol sale
problem that maybe they take away the tobacco permit under the same concept. But I agree this is well >> is the per is is the permit listed to the person or is it to the business? It's to the business. >> It's to the business. A permit pursuant
to this regulation to a business may be suspended, revoked, or not renewed for any for the following reason. A violation of the permit holder, the business of any of the provisions, state, local laws and or regulations. So, it's the business having that. So
again, you could be out of spec for a building code or something like that technically, >> but that does get rid of the, you know, what you got to, you know, a manager with a DUI or a dog violation like those kind of it does get rid of those things. So it's going to need to be business related. So that's it could be business
code, it could be taxes, it could be, >> you know, alcohol, it could be lots of other things, but it's going to be business based as opposed to >> an individual. As long as we are clear that the permit goes with the business, not a >> it's permit issue. It's who's ever
issued the permit to whatever is who whatever entity is issued the golden ticket. Whatever that entity is, >> who's the permit holder, Francis? >> Not the business. >> It's the business. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, if I sell the business, the business holds the permit. Who cares about a transfer process? The business has the permit. >> You still have to have a businessto business transfer. Like, you sell a business, that's a transfer of the business,
>> but the business holds the ticket, not the owner of the business. >> Correct. Correct. >> So, >> okay. >> I'm seeing where I'm seeing where Matt's going with this, though. that theoretically if I sell you my car and I leave my computer in the back seat, well, the
computer's now yours. It comes with the car. That kind of piece. So, I'm not selling you the computer. I'm selling you the car and the computer came along for the ride. >> I'm not I'm not following. I'm sorry. >> The registration is actually better. If you say I sell my car and I leave the I leave the tags on the registration in
the glove box, you can drive with that, right? No, because of the title. >> It's my job to actually get that registration transferred. >> If I never do the paperwork, but if I never do the paperwork, >> I don't know. We don't Let's not Let's
not get Let's not get drown at this. I just just as long as we make sure like that's what it means, right? So, the permit holder, it's a business that's getting the license. It's a business that's getting the permit doing all those things. >> I think we're fine.
>> Okay. No, we're fine. >> Yeah, we're fine. >> Did that just say option two? No. >> No. Where? Where did you see option two? >> All right, just scroll. I I'm trying to look at two documents at the same time here, so apologies. >> Oh, your eyeballs are >> We were in a big section that was an option one and an option two, and I want
to make sure option two wasn't still there. >> Hold on. We have a mistake. It's not 2025, it's 26. >> Was that just from their template language or is that been on has this been on this has been on our plate since January of 25
>> cuz the day at the bottom was 125. I was It had It better not have been on our thing for this long. >> I have a feeling that's just from the model language. >> I'm looking at the one we went over in October. >> I was going to say we started this. >> Yeah. No, I didn't think it was that
long. That's why I say it must be from the model language. >> Yeah. By the 25 dates in July and on the bottom. >> Okay. Let's let's just So, this is motivation to get it done. Okay. All right.
I say we try to accelerate this a little bit if you guys are okay with that, which means having a meeting the beginning the first or second week in April. >> We're meeting twice a month. So, >> yes, I think we should meet. >> Yeah, I think we should meet too. We haven't finished our well regulations
either. >> No, I know. We need to do that, too. So, let's tee that sucker up for April as the first week, the first meeting in April. Let's get that done. >> All right. >> Okay. That discussion is closed. I'm going to move us along to agenda item 7:15, the ID decision support tool
because it's mine. Here we go. COVID 19 positive or that uh town of Littleton hasn't had any cases in the last two weeks and wastewater numbers are actually really really really low in the Boston area. So, um that's a fun positive sign. Arboirus
hasn't started up yet, but the weather's getting warm, so I'm sure those bugs are just right around the corner. Influenza still at low status from uh Massachusetts. And then RSV, I left it as red high, but it did kind of drop
down. It was close to 12%. It's just dropped down below 10%. So hopefully the signs are all pointed at the fact that we are on our way out of respiratory viral season. Um, but I know there's still still coughing kids out there and such like that. So that's what I got.
>> Continue to lick doorork knobs. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> It looks like there's a new variant out there. There is. >> There is. >> There always is. >> There always is. >> I was flying today. I wear a mask
sitting next to a It was very interesting. The gentleman, this is actually this actually is uh makes connection sitting next to a doctor who was uh talking to me cuz I said, "Oh yeah, I have a meeting tonight board of health." And he goes, "Oh, I'm a doctor,
respiratory doctor, yada yada yada." He goes, "I'm really proud that you're wearing the mask on the airplane." I was like, "Why aren't you?" And he goes, "I'm ready to retire." I was like, "Okay." Oh, yeah. Great. Okay. Administrative matters. We
have two meeting minutes for approval. First are the meeting minutes from the February 25th, 2026 meeting. Have all present been able to review those? No. Either of them, Kevin? >> No. I'm sorry. Uh we unfortunately cannot uh approve those minutes. So we
need to punt that to our next meeting. Please, >> my apologies. >> Uh that's that's fair. Um, we're we're only getting the mean the minutes to review the Friday before a meeting, which is previously I think we were
trying to say we needed it like a week before, but we can circle back on that because we said we had a we had a kind of timeline and process for how the board hoped to get that resolved. So, if we could look back at those and say, um, this is the date we were hoping to get minutes by so that we have time to read
them before a meeting. >> And that was that one me. So, I apologize for that. Uh that brings us to our last which is correspondence. So board member updates and other such items. Kevin Davis, do you have anything else? >> I do not.
>> Great. Dan Kaine, do you have anything to throw out there? >> Uh I had somebody ask about sharps disposal in town. Um I certainly know there's commercial sharps disposal where you can, you know, buy your sharps box and then mail it back when it's full. But I admit I don't know if we have a
municipal sharps process. >> We actually should put this uh we should actually have a discussion about this because I ran into this problem personally. My wife has an EpiPen and uh we were unable to find a place to
dispose of it appropriately. Um we we eventually found a place to do it, but there's got to be an easier way. We had talked about it earlier, Francis, about getting some sort of disposal sharps container in town that people could drop them off.
Is where were we with that? Um, so as of right now, Michelle has agreed to keep taking them at their office in air. Um, ideally we should have some kind of revolving account for sharps.
um where you charge a nominal fee basically that will cover the pickup every couple months or so. Um the shop has a similar model so I asked for theirs and they're going to give us a price breakdown of how they do it where it's sustainable and doesn't cost
anything out of pocket. >> There we go. >> Nope. Awesome. I know sharps disposal is expensive because biohazard and sharps, but um certainly just the obvious stuff of insulin and um and epipens and those things, but certainly in the the era of the GLP
ones, there's lots more sharps out there than than there even had been a few years ago. So um nope, that's great. I will share that back to the person who requested and we will update when we get >> and also as also as a side note, there are more auto injectors coming. Um, my
daughter is has an auto injector for her migraine. So, Mgality is coming as an auto injector now, too. So, yeah, we're going to need something like that. >> And and that's not something where, not that I want people like kind of collect things at home and bring them into a bag or something like that, but our public
facilities don't have sharps containers installed in like bathrooms like the library, police station, town hall. There are there no sharps containers installed on bathroom walls in any of those places? >> I don't believe so.
>> Okay. >> There we might >> I'm just used to seeing those in kind of public places in this day and age. Um >> the other question I would have is the police station has a expired medication disposal
>> does not support it right on the It says right on the front of it does not support sharp. Can I Can I go? Okay. It would make sense to me to potentially have a sharps collection in that same exact location because people who look up where do I
get rid of my meds, that's what will pop up. And if they show up there with any sort of sharp, then I think that's we've done a disservice to our people if we don't also have sharps in that location. Yes, there's a cost. Yeah. No, I hear you. It's and it's a
place that's open 24/7. You know, it's it's a controlled environment, so that you know, it's relative it's secure. No, I think of every place in town that makes sense. I agree with you. The the sharps and bathrooms things that Yeah. I mean it's not everywhere but it's even
as simple as I'm I'm again these days with pods insulin you know multiple multiple per day insections are less common than they were but they still happen and having a way of controlling sharps is not necessarily a bad thing and and recognizing
that should be that's not a bad idea. It's a cost. It's a maintenance cost. to dispose of cost. But >> hey Francis, is there a way that you could reach out to the police department and start that negotiation because I think that does make sense to have it
there. >> Yeah, I'll see what I can do. >> Um, also public bathrooms like that. I also agree cuz they're in the shops containers are when you pull over to a rest area, they're in the bathrooms in the rest
areas. So, there probably needs to be some sort of way. I agree with Matt and Dan on that. >> I think a secondary location that we can figure out that that might make people more comfortable going to whether it's the library or inside the town hall. It
doesn't have to be the bathrooms. I was just more throwing that out there as I haven't looked in all the public bathrooms we have in town. Okay. >> Don't we don't we have the nurse is over at the new community center, right? I know it's in a closet. I get it. She has that. But wouldn't that make sense to put it there with her?
>> You could. So there there's certain regulation requirements for >> waste. Um >> Okay, there. All right. Sorry. I'll let you go investigate that then. >> Anything further, Dan?
>> Nope. That was all I had. Thank you. >> Thanks for bringing that to us. >> My apologies, man. >> I apologize. I do have one question. Um, I have not seen him. I'm just I'll We said it before. Uh, we haven't seen Gino in some time, so I do know he's around
town, but um, you know, we probably should just try to touch base to make sure that he is aware of meetings and how to get on and those kind of things. Certainly a member of our board, but >> I will reach out since I'm the chair. I will reach out and talk to Gino >> again.
>> No, just I'm just I apologize. I'm just bringing that back out. I do. I was concerned about his his well-being, but I had seen him out and about someplace else not too long ago, so I know he's at least mobile. >> Uh he brought some pizzas to the
Littleton Police Department >> and I I think that's one of the things I saw. Yes. It's like, okay, so he's mobile, so I'm I'm not as concerned about his well-being, but I'm concerned about that we are are missing him as part of our team. Um, but that does bring up another point that we talked
about before one of the meetings is, uh, Mr. Chair, if you would please send a a message out to the board and set some expectations for if you're not going to be available, please let us know. And if you are going to be available, please
log on to the call no later than five or 10 minutes before the call started. >> Okay, that was my bad tonight. I apologize. No, no, we've all we've all done it, but it's I've also been the one in the in the hot seat and you're sitting there counting down seconds and
there's one person >> makes you nervous as you're trying to frame what you're going to say as you have to abort the entire meeting because nobody showed up. >> It hasn't happened. Um, but I I think it's have some little
expectations for please make sure you're telling people emergencies happen, but tell people as soon as you can in advance. Let Francis know, let the chair know >> and then try to get on a few minutes before it starts. >> I will I will resend an email out through Francis
meeting expectations so Francis can send it out to everybody. >> You're allowed to do it. You're the chair. Okay. Yes, sir. >> Uh, I do not think I have any other
updates or discussion items. Francis, >> um, it's spring seminar season is starting. Um, so I have a couple on the books. Last week they did one about housing court, which was interesting. Um, so I'm trying to attend as much as I can. They're fairly cheap. They're through the Mass Health Officers
Association. They're just good refreshers. >> Cool. >> Excellent. Good job. >> Any information that you would like to present back to the board to educate us after you've gotten your education? Um,
welcome that information as well. >> Sure. >> Continuous learning is >> all right. We have no uh public attendees anymore. So no questions from the audience. Uh the last thing is I assume everybody
else has it as well but it is time for one of our I I don't know if I can say annual a cyber security module training thingama come in. >> Oh >> well well my most recent email says I have 37 37 days left to complete. So the
clock is ticking. >> Yes. So, everybody that has a town account, uh, please require yourself to go take the few moments and do that. >> I will reach out to Kevin Baker after this meeting and make sure that he sees
that and does that as well. >> We can also send out a reminder one week before. >> Okay. >> All right, that's all I got. Beautiful. I have nothing else. Does anybody have anything else?
>> I'll make a motion that we adjourn. >> I can second that motion. >> Motion to second. Roll call vote. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kane. >> Dan Kane votes yes. always.
Thank you.