PLYMPTON– On Monday, May 23, Selectmen met and welcomed their newest member, former Town Moderator John Traynor. The Board reorganized, electing Colleen Thompson chairman, Christine Joy, vice-chairman, and Traynor as clerk. Thompson, who at times shies away from the spotlight, appeared confident as Chairman, and moved the meeting along through a lengthy agenda. Traynor, who has served on the Finance Committee as well as Town Moderator for nine years, did not seem shy at his first BOS meeting, frequently giving his thoughts and opinions.

Filling vacancies and creating new committees

One of the new board’s first priorities is to fill vacancies on various town boards and committees, as well as create several new ones. The full list of vacancies is being prepared, but the board discussed creating a “by-law review” committee, which as the name implies would study the current by-laws and make recommendations.

Selectman Joy recommended a five-member committee, and Town Coordinator Dale Pleau suggested that the selectmen task the committee with a specific by-law or set of by-laws to study to keep them focused.

Selectmen also created an Economic Development Committee, something Joy has been researching and supporting. The board also felt that five members would be an appropriate number of residents for this committee, which would be charged with marketing the community to make it more attractive to businesses as well as make recommendations to the board to make town government more business-friendly.

Joy also has been looking to form a committee to study affordable housing in Plympton and make recommendations.

The Board of Selectmen was in unanimous support of the creation of these committees, and the discussion centered around what mix of people with what types of expertise would be of best use. Selectman Traynor suggested sorting the annual street list by occupation to identify residents with specific expertise, though noting this may leave out those who list their occupation simply as “retired”.

Brook Retreat Follow-up

The selectmen also discussed a follow-up to a letter sent by the owners of the Brook Retreat to the board in response to a scathing letter the board sent them. The selectmen wrote in a letter dated May 5 that they were disappointed in the handling of an incident that occurred at the sober-living facility on Brook Street where a resident left after curfew and allegedly attempted a home invasion while in an apparent drug-induced psychotic break. The man, Shane P. Sullivan, is in state custody pending trial.

The owners of Brook Retreat have refused to appear publicly before the board although they did meet with-former Selectman Mark Russo. The letter also suggests they have not demonstrated sincerity or comprehension of the situation by not appearing before the board and even went so far as to use language from Alcoholics Anonymous literature and encouraged the owners to make a list of people harmed and make direct amends.

The board suggested as well, that the sober-living facility look into the voluntary accreditation program offered by the state for such facilities. The board also seems, from the May 4 letter, to be concerned that fencing around the property promised by the Brook Retreat after the incident has not yet been put up.

Both Selectman Joy and Chairman Thompson acknowledged after the meeting that they really weren’t sure what the fencing was supposed to do in terms of security, noting that it was the owners’ idea.

The board asked the selectmen’s assistant to write a follow-up letter to the facility to ask them to keep the board up-to-date on their fencing situation.

The Brook Retreat owners wrote a brief response, noting that fencing was more expensive than they originally believed, and that the non-profit is currently raising funds for fencing. They also note that they are following the law. Brook Retreat was recently, as the law requires, inspected by the Building Inspector who certified that they do still qualify as an “educational institution,” a requirement for the zoning exceptions they used when siting the facility in a residential neighborhood, and an annual inspection to the sprinkler system is pending.

“What next?” asked Selectman Traynor, after Selectman Joy asked, “What now?”

Software/Website

Two IT related issues came up at the meeting, and Selectman Traynor, a retired software sales representative, had strong opinions about them: municipal permitting software to help move projects requiring permits smoothly through Town House without getting lost or tied up in “red-tape”, and revamping the town website.

Town Coordinator Pleau mentioned that a vendor had demonstrated some software earlier, and Traynor immediately stated that it was too soon to commit to a vendor without seeing at least three options, and getting all departments together to ascertain their needs as well as make sure they are committed to learning and using the software.

Traynor also spoke at length to the faults of the town’s website. The vendor for the website, Virtual Town Hall, provides municipal government website portals to many towns in the Commonwealth, but this website suffers from a confusing interface, strangely alphabetized lists, outdated information and information appearing on one part of the website and not another.

Posted documents also appear online for a time, then disappear, only to reappear after manual intervention, according to the Town Clerk.

Traynor suggested forming a committee to study what may be done about the situation in a cost-effective manner.

The Plympton Board of Selectmen next meets on June 6, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.,Town House.

PLYMPTON – Voters at Wednesday night’s Annual Town Meeting voted to keep the Community Preservation Act in Plympton, despite an attempt to put the question on the ballot in the next town election. 

Citizen’s Petition Article 23 could have put the end of Plympton’s involvement with the  Community Preservation Act by putting it on the ballot in November for Plympton voters to reconsider.  While the printed warrant which meeting members were mailed and/or given Wednesday night had one date, John Henry, speaking to the article, made the motion with another date. This prompted much confusion as to when the motion would ask voters to vote – 2016 or 2017?

Selectmen Chairman Mark Russo noted that of the 160 cities and towns in the commonwealth that participate in CPA, none have ever left. The Finance Committee also noted that CPA often undertakes projects in the town which would not likely be funded in the regular budget, thereby saving taxes.  Voters who were concerned about the surcharge and lowering taxes were reminded of the various exemptions in place and the help for qualifying mid to low income senior citizens and individuals. The article failed.

Of the 10 Citizen Petitions on the warrant, only two prevailed.

The lengthy warrant of 40 articles was completed in one night.

Moderator John Traynor stated at the beginning of the meeting, “We’ve come here as friends and neighbors and we’ll leave as neighbors,” to laughter from those gathered. While some controversy was apparent throughout the evening, the meeting was quite civil.

Selectperson Colleen Thompson began the meeting with a tribute to outgoing Selectmen Chairman Mark Russo, who also spoke a few words, saying that he had been thankful to have had the often thankless job of being a selectman, and pleaded with voters to think about the medium and long-term trajectory of, “the town we adore,” when they vote.

The Finance Committee presented an operating budget with a 1% increase, noting that savings were found in the Vocational and Special Education budget requests from the Silver Lake Regional School District, but that those numbers can’t be counted on year to year as students requiring these services move in and out of town. They also noted a 15% health insurance rate increase for the town.

Most, but not all, employees received an overall 2% increase in salaries, and the FinCom says they tried to level fund all departments. Voters Jack Doyle, of Main Street, and Maureen Springer, of Granville Baker Way, were frequent voices of even further fiscal conservatism throughout the evening.

Doyle questioned why there was a 20% increase in assessors’ expenses (maps are being updated this year), and Springer several times questioned why various employees were receiving more than a 2% wage increase.

Other than a few similar questions, the approximately $9.8 million dollar budget passed with a super-majority.

All of the STM articles passed, except for Article 8, which would have authorized the Board of Selectmen to enter into a “payment in lieu of taxes” agreement with a solar company. These PILOT agreements allow the company to spread their property taxes evenly over a 20-year period, rather than paying diminishing taxes over time, which provides a steady revenue source for the town. Several other PILOT agreements were authorized in the STM, but voters were concerned with this particular project as the details have not yet been negotiated.

The Fire Department requested Article 14, which generated some controversy. The department asked for $8,130 to be appropriated for energy efficient upgrades to the lighting in the aging station. Yet this did not go over well with voters. Stephen Bentley, of Annasnappitt Drive, asked if this was a safety issue. Chief Warren Borsari hedged on committing to an answer. Jack Doyle, of Main Street, said he did not support, “putting a dime,” into the old station, saying the town needed a new one. The article failed.

The voters passed Article 15 unanimously and passed Article 16 by majority, both of which fund the Community Preservation Committee and its activities, then later heatedly debated a citizens’ petition to place a vote to not participate in the CPA at all on the ballot in November, 2016, Article 23 chich failed.

Article 20 was passed over, which involved a potential land-sale from the Silver Lake High School campus to the Town of Kingston for the purpose of building a new Kingston Police Station, due to last-minute legal hurdles with the sale. Maureen Springer, a Silver Lake School Committee member, stated that the article would be back for a  town meeting to consider.

Next came the ten citizens’ petitions, which prompted Selectmen Chairman Russo to plead with voters to be cautious, asking them to allow their town government to work through proper processes. “Citizens’ petitions are a risky prospect,” he said, noting that there are elected officials for a reason. This apparently caused some voters to bristle, with Dawn Hastings of Ring Road, noting, “Our voices matter…and they can be taken away…”

Article 21, a citizens’ petition, would have made required special legislation to change the way the Capital stabilization account funds authorized to be spent.. The article failed, 37-105.

Article 22, also a citizens’ petition that would have funded planning, design and construction of a police station, was passed over, as this is being, “handled in a different way,” according to Art Morin, of Granville Baker Way.

Articles 24 and 25 would have changed the demolition delay by-law used by the historical commission to encourage preservation from 18 months to 6 months. Article 24 failed, leaving the by-law as is, and Article 25 was passed over as it was closely related.

Two non-binding articles, again both citizens’ petitions, asked voters to vote to ask the selectmen to put a non-binding referendum question on the next ballot regarding Jeff Randall’s proposed Ring Road marijuana grow facility and the second to instruct the Board of Selectmen to wait until current legislation modifying Chapter 40(A)3 agricultural zoning regulations at the state level is settled before making any decision on whether to not oppose, support (or oppose by taking no action) the grow-op. Both closely passed– Articles 28 and 29.

A more far-reaching marijuana related by-law change did not pass, as Town Counsel noted that it would be non-binding and unenforceable and it would usurp power the state has granted the selectmen, not Town Meeting. Ethan Stiles, of West Street, stated that the town had updated its marijuana by-laws in 2013 and didn’t see the need to change anything at the moment.

Article 33 passed, and the “Highway Surveyor” position, if the state grants the home rule petition, will be appointed and not elected in the future.

Article 34 passed, and created, but does not fund, a future Town Administrator position, with more responsibilities than the current Town Coordinator position.

Article 35 passed, paving the way for the town to acquire land adjacent to the current municipal campus for a future public safety complex or other municipal needs. Article 36 passed and funded a sum of $125,000 for a consultant for initial plans for the complex.

Finally, the Dennett School will receive $30,000 for a high-tech security system, which the police and fire department, as well as the school committee, feel is extremely important, according to both chiefs.

The meeting concluded at about 11:30 p.m.

PLYMPTON– On Monday, May 2, a new controversy reared its head before the Board of Selectmen. Increasingly, issues in Plympton that the board has no jurisdiction over end up before them at informal hearings, allowing the public to voice their opinions, but leading to little in the way of concrete action.

The major issue before the Board on Monday involved a commercial development project  entirely outside the town limits of Plympton, and it is not clear why Plympton abutters to the Town of Carver appealed to Plympton selectmen, but none-the-less the meeting room was full.

Commercial Development

A developer who own property in Carver, Route 44 Development, has proposed several projects over the past year that would be assisted with state urban redevelopment grant money.  Residents who live near the Plympton/Carver border on Montello Street and Heather’s Path are concerned.

The latest iteration of the proposal, which includes a hotel and a mall, made some residents nervous because, they say, at a Carver Planning Board meeting the words, “eminent domain” were used in conjunction with the project, and 12-16 properties were listed. Eminent domain is when the government takes a property for public use, or in this case, commercial development.

According to residents, a U.S. Supreme Court case involving New London, CT, granted this expansion in eminent domain powers of governments, allowing private property to be taken for commercial development if it benefits the city or town. Although only two Plympton residents have properties which straddle the Plympton/Carver line that were on the original list of properties being considered for seizure by eminent domain, they are fearful, as are their neighbors, that their properties could be the ones selected.

Carver Selectman Alan Dunham was in the audience to allay some resident concerns, and the Plympton board allowed him to address the room. While he noted that the Carver developer has a right to build on his property, he said that 0-3 properties would be considered for seizure via eminent domain. He also noted that Carver would have no power to use eminent domain to take property physically in Plympton.

Dunham says that the project will not include a hotel, and is still in the early stages of planning. As the Carver Redevelopment Authority is providing assistance, the plan must first go from that board to the Planning Board to assure that it fits in with the town’s master plan, and then to the Carver selectmen, who would hold a hearing, and only then on to the state for approval for urban redevelopment funding.

Brian Cherry, of Trout Farm Lane, a candidate for Selectman, asked Dunham whether he was ready to support a project that would take, “half of this man’s property,” referring to one of the two border-straddling residents. Dunham was careful in his response, stating that he couldn’t lock himself in as he hasn’t seen a final plan. He also noted he was speaking personally, not on behalf of his five-member board.

The neighbors opposed the development in general, although from what they said it seemed as if many of them could have accepted living with the original, smaller plans for a two-building distribution facility in their backyards, which they were first notified about in May of 2015, they say.

The scale of the current plan is what appears to have struck a chord with so many, despite Selectman Dunham’s assurances that the current plans are a stretch– although the eminent domain issue certainly looks to be a real fear.

Lisa Maffioli, of Heather’s Path, characterized the project as a “monstrosity,” as well as a, “safety issue.” Jean Winslow, also of Heather’s Path, said she had received a notice from the Carver Planning Board that up to 30-50 trucks would pass through the Plympton section of Montello Street during the construction phase.

Some residents even suggested physically blocking off Montello Street at the Carver line, essentially creating a very long cul-de-sac from Route 58 to the end of Heather’s Path, but Town Coordinator Dale Pleau said that this could not legally be done for safety reasons. He also mentioned a statutory limit for the length of cul-de-sacs.

He did mention that the functional equivalent could possibly be achieved with signage designating the Plympton portion of Montello Street as forbidden to “thru-traffic”.

What began with residents and a lone Carver selectman arguing in the hallway ended in a civilized, if passionate discussion, and residents were respectful to each other, the board and to the visiting selectman.

There was a palpable sense of relief from those gathered that their concerns were being heard, even though the Board of Selectmen has little to no authority over the situation.

As the selectmen were also meeting the next day to finalize preparations for Town Meeting, much of the rest of the agenda was moved to Tuesday, and the meeting ended shortly after the hearing.

• The Plympton BOS next meets on Mondays, May 9, May 16, and May 23 at 6 p.m.

PLYMPTON– In a surprise move, on Monday, April 25 Plympton Selectmen voted unanimously to put on hold a decision on writing a municipal letter of support, non-opposition, or opposition for a proposed medical marijuana grow facility that was to be located at a cranberry farm on Ring Road, until a bill before the state legislature settles the matter of whether a zoning exemption, known as Chapter 40A(3) applies to marijuana or not.

The exemption would allow the grow facility in an agricultural/residential zone, according to Plympton’s bylaws, if the facility is in fact applicable for relief under 40A(3). But the bylaws do not allow medical marijuana to be grown in agricultural/residential zones unless the facility meets the requirements for the exemption.

Chapter 40A(3) is a law, also known as the Dover Amendment, which prevents municipalities from interfering with a broad range of certain activities, and to some extent, in this case, agriculture. The bill, H. 4186, is moving its way through the legislative process, and would exclude marijuana from the 40A(3) exemption.

As there is no accurate way to predict what will happen to a bill as it makes its way through the legislative process; the bill may take some time to become law, conceivably years, if ever.

The letter of support, non-opposition or opposition is the first step in the process of participating on the production side of the medical marijuana regime overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Applicant Jeffrey Randall first came before the Board of Selectmen on January 4, 2016 with a detailed proposal. It is within the full purview of the BOS to make this decision, according to town counsel.

The Board appeared to tacitly support the proposal that night. Selectperson Christine Joy, said she was “personally uncomfortable” and “not a huge fan”, but said that if the townspeople supported it, she would support it. Selectperson Colleen Thompson said she was “not opposed”, but not sure if she would lean more towards a letter of non-opposition or support. Board Chairman Mark Russo was enthusiastically supportive.

As abutters and neighbors learned of the proposal, opposition in town quickly grew. Although Selectmen Russo and Thompson both stated at numerous meetings that there were many in town who supported the proposal, a vocal group opposed formed and began to appear weekly at each board meeting.

Joy quickly seemed to ally herself with those opposed to the proposal, and often spoke out against the grow facility. Thompson repeatedly stated that she was staying open-minded and listening to citizens regarding the application, and Russo remained the voice of enthusiasm for the proposal. The BOS maintained those positions unwaveringly over months.

Board Chairman Russo spoke out against the tactics of those opposed to the proposal and seemed especially frustrated at a recent Public Records Request for some 14 months of his e-mails, written correspondence and meeting notes between himself and Jeff Randall, Randall’s attorney, business partners, associates as well as any emails, written correspondence or meeting notes that mention “marijuana, marihuana or cannabis”.

The request resulted in Russo turning over more than 600 pages of printed material.

The issue has split the town, Russo said on Monday night, and he thought he had enough information to make a decision right then. Saying that the subject was way too divisive right now, and Thompson noting that she wanted some peace, saying it was a motion he hated to make, Chairman Russo moved that the board delay its vote until the bill before the legislature had clarified the zoning issues. Thompson seconded the motion, and the board unanimously put the application on hold.

Randall, his wife and his attorney left the room quickly.

HALIFAX– Halifax Selectmen held a special meeting on Tuesday, March 30 in order to meet with Robert Bergstrom regarding a music event he is planning for this summer, as well as meet with FinCom members regarding a proposed meals tax. They also held a public street acceptance hearing.

Forking over more money for meals?

The Selectmen are planning a warrant article for this May’s Annual Town Meeting asking voters to approve a .75% meals tax. The small tax, common among neighboring communities, according to Town Administrator Charlie Seelig, would add 75 cents to a $100 dinner bill.

The tax would simply be added to the 6.25% sales tax already paid on meals, the two combined raising the excise tax to an even 7%. The meals tax would be collected with the sales tax by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, and redistributed back to the town. No extra burden would be put on restaurant owners, other than reprogramming point-of-sales systems to charge 7%, rather than 6.25% in tax.

The small tax is unlikely to drive restaurant dinersfrom coming into town to eat, nor locals leaving for towns without the tax as it is becoming increasingly hard to find nearby communities without a meals tax.

In fact, Seelig recounted a story of a certain franchised coffee shop, whose owner was so accustomed to working in communities with the meals tax, simply assumed Halifax had imposed one as well and thus programmed the point-of-sale systems to collect 7% sales tax. A sharp-eyed resident noticed the extra .75% being charged on their coffee or doughnuts, and Seelig had to go notify the coffee shop that Halifax in fact does not have a meals tax.

The ultimate decision is up to voters at the Annual Town Meeting, but Selectmen and FinCom members were already discussing the meals tax as if it had passed. When they present the article, both boards hope that there is a clear understanding of where the money raised from the tax would go.

Chairman Roy is leaning

owards the capital planning fund, although there will be ongoing discussions with FinCom.

A public hearing on the matter is scheduled for Tuesday, April 19 at 3 p.m.

Questions remain about ‘Music Event’

Robert Bergstrom, known for his MudFest truck racing events, was again before the board to discuss his plans for a possible yet-to-be-named two-day concert that he is planning for the summer. The board seemed as skeptical as ever, and several town officials were present to express their concerns.

The concert, which according to Bergstrom might attract up to 5,000 people per day, is still in its infancy in terms of planning. Kim Roy, Selectmen Chairman noted that the board had asked Bergstrom to begin meeting with different town departments to discuss plans several weeks ago, and he had only begun the process yesterday, with the Police Chief.

He had prepared a preliminary information packet, including names of possible bands, a security expert that he knew– but did not, according to his résumé have experience with crowd control at a concert, and an aerial map of Fieldstone Farms, where he plans to hold the event.

Major concerns that have still not been addressed by Tuesday night’s meeting include working out a public health plan with Health Agent, Cathy Drinan, coordinating with the Police and Fire Departments, and as well as the Building Inspector.

The Building Inspector, Robert Piccirilli had numerous reservations, including whether or not such an event could even be held in an agricultural zone. He also noted that because the owner of Fieldstone Farms has a legal agreement with the town exempting him from certain zoning by-laws, but that in his opinion this event would not “count” for those exemptions because it is not related to agriculture.

Roy said she had been cautiously optimistic that Bergstrom could pull off the “ambitious” proposal, but that she needed to be convinced, a sentiment echoed by other Selectmen, Troy Garron and Tom Millias. All agreed they wanted detailed plans, much more detailed than those provided thus far.

“You’re going to have to sell me,” said Selectman Millias.

Despite Bergstrom and the board having worked well together in the past for MudFest, this event would be on a different scale.

“We can’t just throw the town’s liability to the wind to throw a party,” said Roy. “This is not ready. When you’re ready, come back.”

Apparently because of his good history with the board, Bergstrom was added to the agenda for the April 12 scheduled meeting.

He stated that he could “absolutely meet that date.”

The board’s change in tone from the last time Bergstrom appeared before them did not seem to phase him. It appears, though, that Bergstrom will have to plan very carefully and quickly to appease the Selectmen.

On The Road To Acceptance

A public “street acceptance” hearing was also held on Tuesday, for two roads in the Two River Farm development, off of Walnut Street. This type of hearing comes up less frequently than other types of hearings in Halifax, for example, dog hearings, and therefore Chairman Roy was a bit confused as to how to start the hearing, but Seelig was able to walk her through it.

“We don’t accept many streets in these parts,” she joked.

A two-step process, first the Selectmen and then the voters at Town Meeting must approve any new roads so that the town can take responsibility for their maintenance. Traditionally, the developer comes before the board to address any questions from the Selectmen or the public.

No members of the public were present for the hearing.

A representative of GF Engineering was present, though, and he addressed a concern from the Water Department posed by the Town Administrator. They were concerned that several “water gates” needed to be raised to grade level. Other than some topsoil that needed to be removed, the Selectmen appeared satisfied and voted to accept the road on the condition that the two minor issues were resolved.

Bourne Drive and Danson Lane are now half way down the road to being accepted. Welcome, and best of luck at Town Meeting!

Abram Neal

Express staff

PLYMPTON– At a brief meeting on Monday, March 28 Selectmen updated the public on a few ongoing major issues, closed the Annual Town Meeting warrant, but not the Special Town Meeting warrant, and acknowledged ten citizens’ petitions that have been certified by Town Clerk Tara Shaw. Board Chairman Mark Russo was not present, and Selectperson Colleen Thompson was acting Chair in his absence.

Controversies On Hold

Two on-going controversies have been put on hold awaiting further information, according to Selectperson Christine Joy.

Ring Road resident Jeff Randall’s proposal to locate a medical marijuana ‘grow-op’ on his farm, in an agricultural/residential zone appeared to meet the requirements of Plympton zoning by-laws, although he was seeking relief under a state law that prevents local zoning by-laws from interfering in certain activities, including agriculture, known as Chapter 40A(3). Although Plympton by-laws forbid medical marijuana cultivation in an agricultural/residential zone, they specifically exempt proposals that meet the requirements of Chapter 40A(3).

Although different attorneys at different times throughout this months-long controversy interpreted Chapter 40A(3) differently, apparently the Commonwealth has not determined if marijuana cultivation is actually agriculture. (And if it is not, that would stop Randall’s proposal in its tracks as 40A(3) would not apply and his farm is in an agricultural/residential zone).

At the behest of Selectperson Joy, and a unanimous vote by the board, Plympton’s state legislators, Representative Thomas Calter and Senator Michael Brady offered to file legislation  to clarify the law, by introducing a change in wording to 40A(3) explicitly forbidding marijuana cultivation in the definition of agriculture. According to the legislators, Plympton is the first town to challenge marijuana cultivation as agriculture.

Joy reported that there is no news yet from Beacon Hill on the definition of agriculture, at least as it applies to 40A(3) nor on the pending legislation.

Brook Retreat “Sober Living” house

The Brook Retreat, a so-called “sober living” facility located at 55 Brook Street, has also recently been in the news due to a resident leaving the facility and terrorizing a couple neighboring the “sober house” by attempting to break into their home using an ice-chipping tool.  Police report that he succeeded in damaging the house, breaking an outside light and a storm door while shouting threats.

Although the three principal operators of the facility spoke with Selectman Russo, they refused to do so publicly, and have not responded to a request for comment from the Express.

A large number of residents came to the selectmen’s meeting on March 21 to hear a report on the conversation Russo had with the operators of the Brook Retreat. His report did not appear to satisfy those gathered.

At the suggestion of an audience member, the board unanimously voted Selectperson Joy to meet with Town Counsel to explore any action the town could take to improve safety and communication with the unlicensed facility, which, it appears, is not required to be licensed by any state agency.

Joy reported back to the public that she had spoken to Town Counsel, and that they have a few “good options”, but did not say what those were stating that she was waiting for Town Counsel to prepare an official opinion for the board.

The board and the townspeople will have to wait for further information on another controversial topic in town.

10 Citizen’s Petitions for Town Meeting

Annual Town Meeting Warrant Closed; 10 Citizens’ Petitions accepted

The board closed the warrant for the May 18 Annual Town Meeting on Monday evening, although they chose to wait to close the Special Town Meeting warrant in order to give themselves some more time to tweak it.

A large number of citizens’ petitions will appear on the warrant this year, including several addressing medical marijuana grow facilities, another that would end the town’s participation in the Community Preservation Act, two addressing the town’s demolition delay by-law, and two that would order the town to sell certain lots that are in tax-foreclosure status.

The three medical marijuana related warrant articles include one that would ask to see if “the Town will vote to allow the residents of Plympton to vote on the proposed marijuana grow facility on Ring Road that is presently before the Board of Selectmen.”

According to Town Counsel at a previous meeting, any vote of the sort would necessarily be a non-binding referendum, as Selectmen have full decision-making power to oppose, send a municipal letter of non-opposition or a letter of support for any type of medical marijuana operation.

It is not apparent if the measure passes when the referendum would appear on a ballot;  due to time constraints, it could not appear on this year’s annual town election ballot.

Marijuana RMDs

Another warrant article asks the town to vote to instruct the board to oppose any Registered Marijuana Dispensary (RMD) applications located in an agricultural/residential zone until the state makes definitive decisions on whether the agricultural exemption in Chapter 40A(3) applies to marijuana.

The final article asks the voters to amend the town zoning by-law, adding a new article: “Article XXXI…All applications for a Registered Marijuana Dispensary (RMD) in which any of the facilities (dispensary, cultivation, or processing) are located in the Town must be approved or denied through a ballot question to be voted at the Annual Town Election. Passage of the question will authorize Selectmen to provide a letter of support or non-opposition to the applicant, failure of the question will authorize the Selectmen to provide a letter of opposition to the applicant.”

On a different subject, an article asking voters to revoke Plympton’s participation in the Community Preservation Act (CPA), which it accepted at the 2008 Annual Town Meeting, will be on the warrant. The CPA, funded by a 1.5% additional excise tax on real property and matching funds from the state, established a dedicated funding source, “to acquire and preserve open space, parks and conservation land, protect public drinking water supplies and scenic areas, protect farm land [sic] and forests from future development, restore and preserve historic properties, and help meet local families’ [sic] housing needs.”

Two other warrant articles ask the voters to make changes to the demolition delay by-law, which protect houses of historic value from being demolished without significant delays, which are generally used in order for the town officials and property owners to find an alternative to demolition.

The current delay is 18-months, and one article would reduce that to six-months. The other slightly changes language in another section of the by-law, to reflect the change if the voters approve the shorter delay period in the aforementioned article.

Finally, two other articles list several properties that are in tax-foreclosure status and ask voters to instruct the town to sell them. They appear all to be vacant lots, although some are of significant value– one roughly 16-acre lot on Palmer Road was assessed at $203,100 in 2016.

• Animal Control Officer Frank Bush announced a low cost rabies clinic at the Kingston Animal Shelter on Saturday, April 16, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon.  Aimed to assist seniors, the cost is $10.  Contact the ACO at 781-585-9444 with any questions before April 11.    Transportation if needed by COA van.

• The Selectmen will not meet next week, but will meet next on Monday April 11.