===OCR macOS Vision===
===PAGE 1===
Members present: Tom Alonzo, Chairman; Phyllis Luck, Vice Chairman, Damon McQuaid, Clerk;
Katey Adams
Member not present: Michael-Ray Jeffreys
Others present: Heather Lemieux, Town Manager; Adam Burney, Land Use Director
The meeting opened at 7:00 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Alonzo announced in accordance
with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, please be advised that this meeting is being recorded
and broadcast over the Lunenburg Public Access channel.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Ms. Adams expressed condolences to the Police Department and the Barney family on the passing of Pat
Barney, a former resident and Lunenburg officer.
Before calling for comment from the public, Mr. Alonzo reminded all per policy that speakers during
public comment would be limited to 3 minutes per speaker except at the discretion of the Chairperson.
Ron Dionne, 131 White Street, did not agree with comments made previously about the old Primary
School roof shingles cracking; shingles don't crack, they curl. He researched and found the roof was
installed 20 years ago and maintained there is nothing wrong with the roof except for the shingles that
slid out due to not being nailed. He said there was no mention of mold in the Vertex Property Condition
Assessment and when he toured the building he did not see any mold, only a couple of black spots that
resemble mold. Regarding the exterior bricks along the right hand side, there are only two inches
exposed with four inches of brick so there is mortar in there, keeping the building tight. He concluded
there is no way water can get in. He hoped the Board looked favorably on the expense of $11,000 to
keep the building protected from the elements.
Announcement- There will be a community blood drive at St. Boniface Parish at 817 Massachusetts
Ave. on Saturday, November 2nd from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Public Hearing on the Layout to Accept Butterfly Lane as a Town Road
Chris Crowley, Ernco Development, for Butterfly Lane stated he was here for the hearing. All of our
work has been done; all nine lots are completed and occupied.
Mr. Alonzo read aloud:
"To All Interested Parties:
In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 82, §§ 1, 22, the Lunenburg Board of Selectmen will hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 7:05 p.m. in the Bilotta Room at Town Hall, 17 Main Street,
2nd Floor, Lunenburg, MA on the request from Michael Crowley for consideration of Butterfly Lane to
be accepted as a public way. Recommendation for layout is to be done in conjunction with street
acceptance consideration at the November 12, 2019 Special Town Meeting.
A copy of the proposed layout plan along with legal descriptions are on file with the Town Clerk Office,
===PAGE 2===
from Land Use Director Adam Burney dated October 10th:
The Planning Board at its meeting of 7 October 2019, voted to release the Subdivision Bond for the development
of Butterfly Lane. This release was based on the completion of the work required per the Subdivision approval
dated 3 June 2014. A final inspection by the Planning Board's Review Engineer Jeff Walsh of Graves
Engineering was conducted on 12 September 2019 that identified 14 outstanding items with the construction. A
follow up inspection was conducted on 7 October 2019 that confirmed that all outstanding matters were
resolved. The completed roadway is reflected on the Plan titled Butterfly Lane As- Built Street Plan of Land,
prepared by Whitman & Bingham Associates, LLC, 510 Mechanics St., Leominster, MA 01453 dated 16 August
2019 with revisions 2 October 2019.
At this time, the Planning Board has completed its process with the developer of Butterfly Lane and is satisfied
that the work performed meets the requirements of the Planning Board Rules & Regulations for the
Subdivision of Land and the Definitive Subdivision Approval Issued on 3 June 2014.
Mr. Alonzo asked if DPW had determined what the future cost for the Town would be to clean up the two
stormceptors on Butterfly Lane. Ms. Lemieux reported DW Director Rodriquenz had stated $300 per hour
with a minimum of 4 hours paid annually. Mr. Crowley reported they were cleaned out two weeks ago along
with the catch basins in the road and it took about two hours per stormceptor. The only remaining item is the
Certificate of Compliance issued by Conservation Commission, which should be taken care of tomorrow.
Discussion ensued about the maintenance, or lack of, of the detention basins. Ms. Adams asked about
procedure for a layout hearing. Land Use Director Burney stated the Board's action is separate from Town
Meeting. This meeting is to vote to accept the layout of the road. Town meeting accepts it as a public road
and to maintain it going forward.
Motion: K. Adams
To layout Butterfly Lane as a public way as indicated on the as built plan
2nd: D. McQuaid
Vote: All in Favor
Mr. Crowley thanked the Board.
APPOINTMENTS
Ratification of Town Manager Appointments:
Full Time Police Officer Ramon Cabrera (effective February 23, 2020)
Full Time Police Officer Anthony Cappucci (effective February 24, 2020)
Police Chief Jim Marino read his letter to the Town Manager aloud:
I am pleased to recommend both Anthony P. Cappucci and Ramone J. Cabrera for appointment to the
position of full time police officer.
Ramon J. Cabrera has previously completed the Reserve Intermittent Police Academy in Boylston
which includes 345 ½ hours, has passed the required employee physical, the Physical Agility Test and
cal, the Physical Asiy Test and
an extensive background investigation. Ramon holds an Associate's Degree in Criminal Justice which
he earned at Quinsigamond Community College. Ramon is tri-lingual. He is fluent in English, Spanish
and Portuguese. Ramon is presently employed with the Lunenburg Police Department as a Reserve
Police Officer.
===PAGE 3===
If you decide to appoint these candidates to full time status, I will enroll them in the first available full time Police
Academy which will commence on February 24th in field school at the Massachusetts Police Training
Committee's Boylston Police Academy,
I respectfully request that if you do ratify the appointments you make Ramone Cabrera's effective on February 23,
2020, and Anthony Cappucci's on February 24, 2020 to clarify any Seniority issues as Ramone has more time on
the job than does Anthony.
Motion: K. Adams
2n°: D. McQuaid
To ratify the appointment of Full Time Police Officer Ramon Cabrera, effective February 23,
2020 and Full Time Police Officer Anthony Cappucci (effective February 24, 2020)
Vote: All in Favor
The Board congratulated both officers.
VI. CURRENT BUSINESS
Minutes/Warrants/ Action Items
There were no minutes this evening. The Board signed an accounts payable warrant in the amount of
$246,189.02, a payroll deductions warrant in the amount of $565,812.47, and a payroll warrant in the
amount of $813,448.40. The Board signed the amendment to the Traffic Rules & Regulations for the
recent addition of eleven stop signs at various locations recommended by DPW Director and the Police
Chief.
Action File: Mr. Alonzo reiterated his previous request for lines to be painted on newly paved roads,
especially now that it it getting darker earlier. He stated a policy should be established that lines should
be painted as soon as possible on newly painted roads.
Ms. Lemieux asked what particular roads were not lined. Mr. Alonzo mentioned Townsend Harbor
Road and Lancaster Road. Ms. Luck added Reservoir Road
Ms. Adams asked about an update from the state on the status of the intersection of Massachusetts
Avenue and Electric Avenue. Ms. Lemieux stated she would follow up on this again.
Continuation of the October 8, 2019 Dangerous Dog Public Hearing: Elizabeth Guglietti, 36
Woodland Drive
Mr. Alonzo stated we heard testimony last week from Mrs. Terhune (victim), the ACO, Officer Munroe,
Mr. & Mrs. Guglietti (dog owners), various witnesses as well as character witnesses and have closed the
public comment portion of the hearing. The Board did come to a determination (4 in favor, 1 abstain)
that the dogs were dangerous. This hearing was continued to tonight because the summary detail of dog
hearings provided did not include the possible findings and orders when the dogs) is determined to be
dangerous. Since then the Board has been provided with Chapter 140, § 157, which addresses what
actions can be taken with nuisance and dangerous dogs. We have reviewed that and now we will open
the hearing to determine what our determination for the order is concerning the two dogs.
===PAGE 4===
the owner. Also regarding the muzzle, that is an option, but it is muzzled and tethered.
Ms. Adams stated she spoke to the Chief and our current bylaw needs to be updated because state law
states a kennel license is required for three or more dogs. In this case, two dogs were deemed dangerous
which leaves four remaining at that location that have the same predisposition to be attracted to small
prey. So, the fencing and everything is not adequate for those dogs. We saw the photos of the current
fence; they don't match what it should be. My thought is to revoke the kennel license and this puts them
into a residential property where three dogs are allowed. We have to make an outcome for the dangerous
dogs but I also recommend that we revoke the kennel license. Ms. Luck asked if we revoke the kennel
license could we still insist on adequate fencing.
Mr. Alonzo reminded that this hearing is about the two dogs and the determinations we make has to do
with the two dogs, not anything beyond that. If we keep the dogs we can tell them to get fencing, if we
don't keep the dogs due to choosing another permanent option, then you can't tell them to get the
fencing. Ms. Adams disagreed stating the Board of Selectmen is one entity that can revoke a kennel
license. Mr. Alonzo stated that would have its own hearing. Ms. Adams stated we could put this on a
future agenda and begin the process because I see that as a necessary outcome here. I feel like there has
to be consequences for a situation that involves a dangerous dog and the failure was the fence. In this
case, that is one of the outcomes that I would be comfortable with.
Mr. Alonzo disagreed stating this (hearing) has to have its own determination. You can certainly bring
up for another agenda the review of the kennel license, but it cannot be tied to the determination of this
case. Ms. Luck agreed with Ms. Adams and stated it could be addressed at a later date. Ms. Lemieux
noted a section of the summarized document of the law addresses the enclosure and being confined.
Ms. Adams stated it kind of overlaps and we should review all our kennel licenses.
Ms. Luck stated this is very difficult and I think about the woman who was attacked and the fact that she
has two small children who want to be able to leave their property and walk their dog. I don't see how
leaving those two dogs there is an option.
Mr. Alonzo stated, "This is completely a no win situation, but we do have to make a determination. To
me the determination is, with some of the particulars that came out in testimony, was that the victim and
her dog were in a public way, were not on the attacking dogs' property and were not actually even near
the attacking dogs' property. So the dog wasn't defending its property, wasn't defending its owner, its
space did not get violated, however unfortunate, it was clearly an attack by them. While I am all for the
protection of animals and don't take their lives lightly, I think the overlying principle is that citizens of
our town need to be able to without fear, walk the streets with their dogs on leashes, without the
possibility of attack. It was said that the dog was doing what a dog would do, that may or may not be
true, but that really is a moot point. These dogs did do that. Even with the fencing in, it was indicated to
us that the dogs had gotten loose several times, not always through the fence. We were told they came
out through the tront door sometimes. So unless this tencing encloses the whole property, including the
front door, I feel confident that the dogs can't be, and not through any fault of the owners, maintained.
===PAGE 5===
Discussion about the fencing ensued. Ms. Adams questioned the posting on the agenda as a dangerous
dog hearing and not just a dog hearing. Mr. Alonzo stated that is how the complaint was filed, but we
still could have deemed them nuisances, not dangerous. Discussion stated it was clearly an attack not a
nuisance event. Ms. Luck stated," I don't think we have a choice. I believe all of us are animal lovers. I
certainly do not enter this lightly. It breaks my heart to have to make this finding. The dogs proved
themselves to be dangerous and were I the family that experienced this, I would have to move if those
dogs were allowed to stay in the neighborhood. It's not fair to anyone in the neighborhood. Anyone that
has a dog, anyone that wants to walk." Mr. McQuaid noted it was nearly a quarter mile away that this
happened. Ms. Luck added, "There is a lot of people that live in that area. It is a dense neighborhood."
Ms. Adams expressed concern that other animals remain there with potentially the same disposition and
that the safety component is involved in the property being a safe one for all the dogs. Ms. Luck agreed
and thought they should take action on that because they are the same type of dogs and have the same
predisposition. Ms. Adams stated, "Even with two dogs removed and the circumstances with the fencing
as it is now there is a potential for the same outcome. I have a hard time condemning two dogs. "
Mr. Alonzo stated," Having a separate hearing on the other issues is a good idea and again outside the
scope of this hearing but I would strongly encourage the owners to start taking precautions in that area
exactly for that reason. "Ms. Adams noted if they did no longer have a kennel, they would only be
allowed three dogs. Three would have to be removed, but not through euthanasia. "Mr. Alonzo stated,
"We have a hearing before us for two dogs; we have to make a determination tonight about what to do
with those two dogs." Further discussion ensued about the ruling of "dangerous" and the existing
fencing. Ms. Lemieux reviewed the law regarding fines for noncompliance of an order.
Motion: T. Alonzo
2°: P. Luck
To determine the dangerous dogs would be humanely euthanized in the case of the two dogs
involved in the attack
Vote: 3-1 In Favor, 1 opposed (Adams)
Mr. Alonzo stated," The defendant should know that once a finding is made, there is an appeals
procedure set forth in M.G.L, c. 140, section 157, that within 10 days after an order is issued, the owner
or keeper of a dog may bring a petition in district court within the judicial district in which the order
relative to the dog was issued or where the dog is owned or kept, addressed to the justice of the court,
praying that the order be reviewed by court or magistrate of the court. "
He stated, "Again, I don't know if we had any other good options in this case." Jeremy Cohen, Boston
Dog Lawyers, representing the Gugliettis, stated, "You did, you could have just ordered this fence and if
they didn't comply..."
Mr. Alonzo responded, "Obviously with the 3-1 vote, this Board did not determine that was in the best
interest of the case." Mr. Cohen stated, "You could have just seized the dog." Mr. Alonzo stated,
"Which we did not do." Mr. Cohen stated, "See you in court."
===PAGE 6===
look at the front of it. If she had done what she should do, much of this might have been avoided. I have
never had them climb over the fence, most of the time they crawl under by the cute part that she saw that
had all bricks along the bottom, so they couldn't do that. She apparently is not able physically to do that
anymore and you really ought to consider finding someone who can do the job that she did not do.
That's all. "
The Board continued and signed the bond anticipation note.
Town Manager Report- no report this week.
Committee Reports: Mr. McQuaid reported the Town Clerk coordinated the first TC Passios Building
Design Committee meeting for tomorrow. Ms. Adams asked if their meetings would be recorded. Mr.
McQuaid stated not tomorrow night because it is organizational but other future meetings hopefully
would be.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Report from Town Manager on Ballot Question
Ms. Lemieux reported the Board had requested a report regarding the placement of adult use recreational
marijuana prohibition ballot questions. She put together a report that reviewed the events and processes
that transpired regarding the placement of the questions on the May 18, 2019 Annual Town Election
warrant. As part of that report, I recommended a procedure to improve upon the checks and balances
when placing a question on the ballot for future local elections. She read portions of the report aloud that
was specific to the 2019 Annual Town Meeting:
On December 11, 2018, members of the Planning Board attended the Board of Selectmen's meeting to request the
Board of Selectmen vote to place five separate ballot questions on the annual town election ballot that would ask
voters to adopt a bylaw that would prohibit cultivation, manufacturing, testing facilities, retail, and
transportation. The Board postponed a vote on whether or not to place five separate ballot questions on the
Annual Town Election ballot until January 8, 2019 when the full Board was present and input was requested from
residents and business owners. At the January 8, 2019 Board of Selectmen's meeting, the Board met with the
Planning Board again, invited the public to comment and, ultimately, voted "To place the five warrant articles on
the ballot as requested by the Planning Board."
At the February 19, 2019 Selectmen's meeting, the Board voted "To add the sixth ballot question to the May
2019 Annual Town Election on the prohibition of marijuana for researchers. " M.G.L c. 54 § 64 stipulates
that notices or warrants for state and town elections where official ballots are used shall state "in the form
in which it will appear upon the ballot, any question submitted to the voters". Therefore, the Selectmen must
determine the exact wording of the ballot question, as the language of the question on the notice or warrant
must be the same as that appearing on the ballot
Subsequent to determining the language of the ballot questions, the Town Clerk "shall not print on a town
election ballot any question to the voters for which the Town Clerk receives final written notice after the
thirty-fifth day before such election" (M.G.L. c. 54, § 42C). To meet the 35 day requirement set forth under
===PAGE 7===
on the warrant and signea jive copies oj the annual town trecion warrant. M.u.u. C. 24, S 44C does not
identify a process or party that provides that notice to the Town Clerk but as a matter of practice, in
Lunenburg, it would be the responsibility of the Town Manager (or his/her designee).
In the case of the six ballot questions that were approved by the Board of Selectmen to be placed on the May
18, 2019 Annual Town Election ballot, I erred by failing to provide this written notification that should have
included the exact wording of the six ballot questions. The Annual Town Election was posted on April 3,
2019 without the ballot questions and it came to my attention at the Annual Town Meetng during the
chon April 3,
presentation by the Lana Use Director that covered Articles 20-31 and the lown Clerk announced that there
were no prohibition questions on the Town Election ballot.
In order to avoid this happening again in the future I put together a policy for the Board to review.
She asked for any questions from the Board. Mr. Alonzo thanked Ms. Lemieux for putting the
report together. Those who attended the meeting were looking for an answer and we as a Board
promised they would get one. We will review this policy if not tonight then at a future agenda. He
suggested when notifying the Town Clerk to place ballot questions on the election ballot, to copy the
Board of Selectmen, and that the Town Clerk's response include the Board of Selectmen. This will
ensure that everybody knows whether this has happened or not.
Ms. Adams expressed disappointment at losing the opportunity to prohibit marijuana after all the
work on the bylaw and public hearings due to the error. Ms. Luck noted the bylaws did not pass at
town meeting and thanked Ms. Lemieux for her report. The full report will be posted on the town
website with the proposed policy.
2. Right of First Refusal Determination for 250 Howard Street
Ms. Lemieux stated she received an email from Open Space Chairman Kibbe stating the committee had
no interest in purchasing this property. The option for the Board is to not exercise the Right of First
Refusal for the property. There was no reason provided by Open Space but given that the Saliba
Property purchase is going to town meeting....Ms. Luck added 250 Howard Street would need to pass
Motion: P. Luck
That the Board pass over the Right of First Refusal for 250 Howard Street
2nd: D. McQuaid
Vote: All in Favor
3. Vote on Recommendations for articles on the November 12, 2019 Special Town Meeting
and Sign Warrants for Posting
Ms. Lemieux informed the Board that she had put in the previous recommendations of the Board and
Finance Committee to date in this draft. The Board continued their review of the remaining articles.
Article 1. Fiscal 2020 Budget Adjustments
Ms. Lemieux stated this (PowerPoint slide) shows the changes that need to occur in the maturing debt
interest accounts. There are a couple of things going on; the ladder truck interest and principal were
included in the FY'20 budget because delivery is not going to be until April, we will have to borrow for
that and it won't affect our debt until FY'21. We do have a pay down on the Middle/High School BAN
(bond anticipation note) that requires a principal pay down of $90,000 and interest pay down of $15,377
===PAGE 8===
Line #
Appropriation
1
Principal - Loans
2
nterest - Loans
interest - Temporary Loan
$
$
$
28
Assessor's Administration
Subtotal FY19 Omnibus Budget Adj $
Total FY19 Budget Adjustments
Change in State Assessments $
Tax Title $
Cherry Sheet Offsets $
Total Expenditure Adjustments
Voted 5/4/19
3,094,373.33
$
1,538,974.55 $
37,800.00 $
4,860,868.78
80, 7000 $
$
1,012,516.00 $
12,000.00 $
202,787.00
$
$
11/12/19 STM Adj
Amended Appropriation
571.00
$
3,094,944.33
(15,377.00) $
1,523,597.55
19,994.47 $
57,794.47
(12,000.00) $
177.720.90
(6,811.53) $
4,854,057.25
(6,811.53)
69,991.00
12,000.00 $
(3,605.00) $
1,082,507.00
24,000.00
199,182.00
71,574.47
Additional Cherry Sheet Aid
Change in Excludable Debt
change in New Grow
otal Revenue Adjustmen
Current Surplus Available
$
58,571.00
109,994.47
(18,387.00)
150,178.47
78,604.00
Motion: D. McQuaid
To recommend approval of Article 1
2ºd: P. Luck
Vote: All in Favor
Article 2 is for the Conversion of Street Lights to LED fixtures
Ms. Lemieux stated there are two options to the town. The first would be to pay Unitil to convert the
streetlights and the second would be to purchase the lights and have the Town go out to bid for a
contractor to convert the lights to LED fixtures. The preferred option of the Green Community Task
Force is the second option. More research is needed. She recommended the Board remove Article B as
labeled in your draft booklet. Mr. Alonzo recommended deferring until Town Meeting to get all
questions answered. Ms. Luck suggested reviewing how many streetlights we want rather than just
converting them all. The Board concurred with removing Article 2.
Article 3 is to see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds, a
sum of money to the Special Purpose Stabilization Fund.
Ms. Lemieux stated this would be the excess levy capacity of $78,000.
Motion: D. McQuaid
To recommend Article 3
2nd: P. Luck
Vote: All in Favor
Article 4 is an Amendment to the FY20 Sewer Enterprise
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds, all sums of
money necessary to amend the amounts voted under Article 12 of the May 4, 2019 Town Meeting
for the Sewer Enterprise Fund
===PAGE 9===
any action relative thereto. (Submitted by the Town Manager)
Motion: T. Alonzo
To defer recommendation until Special Town Meeting
2nd: P. Luck
Vote: All in Favor
Ms. Lemieux requested the Board remove two articles that were on the first draft warrant as we will not
be ready to present at Special Town Meeting.
Motion: D. McQuaid
2nd. P. Luck
To remove the warrant article concerning purchase of property at 635 Massachusetts Avenue
Vote: All in Favor
Motion: D. MeQuaid
2ed. P. Luck
To remove the warrant article concerning purchase of property located at 250 Howard Street
Vote: All in Favor
Motion: K. Adams
2id: D. McQuaid
To defer recommending Article 9 until Special Town Meeting
Vote: All in Favor
Ms. Lemieux will put together all the final recommendations and renumber the articles. The Board
except Ms. Adams signed the back page of the warrant for posting. Ms. Adams will review the final
document overnight and come in and sign the warrant tomorrow. Ms. Lemieux will send the final
version to the entire Board.
4. Discussion about estimate for repairs to old Primary School
Ms. Lemieux reported this was on the agenda again because the original quote did not include the
structural integrity of the roof. She has reported to the Board all the projects that were earmarked for this
year's facility budget, which did not leave any leeway for this additional project. Something would have
to be forgone in its place. The DPW Director has sent an email after going into the attic of the old
Primary School to inspect the roof. The engineering company has put together another estimate to
address the structural integrity of just the roof.
Discussion ensued about the building overall, and its condition and how to proceed. Suggestion was
made to take some of the excess levy money and use it to seal up the building to prevent it from
deteriorating further. Mr. Alonzo asked what the recommendation is of the DPW Director regarding this
building. Ms. Lemieux stated to not do these repairs. Ms. Lemieux stated that Facilities Tech Kit Walker
provided did not include the roof. That was a square footage estimate and it's not saying there might be
other issues found when they do the work. For structural integrity, you have to open up the roof. Ms.
Adams stated there were some things we could do on that list. Ms. Lemieux stated everything but the
roof could be done in-house.
===PAGE 10===
minutes for "public speak," no matter how many people want to speak or the issues that people want to
discuss.
Further discussion ensued about time limits on speaking. Anything up for "debate" could be added to a
future agenda. Mr. Alonzo was in favor of adopting #6, #8 and #9:
6. Large groups addressing the same topic are encouraged to consolidate their remarks and/ or select a
spokesperson to comment at Public Speak.
8. The Chair of the meeting may not interrupt speakers who have been recognized to speak, except that the
Chair reserves the right to terminate speech which is not Constitutionally protected because it constitutes
true threats, incitement to imminent lawless conduct, comments that were found by a court of law to be
defamatory, and/ or sexually explicit comments made to appeal to prurient interests.
9. Disclaimer: Public Speak is not a time for debate or response to comments by the School Committee.
Comments made at Public Speak do not reflect the views or the positions of the School Committee. Because
of constitutional free speech principles, the School Committee does not have the authority to prevent all
speech that may be upsetting and/ or offensive at Public Speak. (Note: School committee would be replaced
with Board of Selectmen
Ms. Adams was not in favor of #9 believing that it would restrict speech. Mr. Alonzo believed it
was just using common sense, by setting a guideline, on what the Board would comment. Mr.
McQuaid stated it is more of a guideline for the the Board to not get into a debate with the public
during public comment. A final draft will be composed and brought back to the Board.
Mr. Alonzo moved on to the Social Media Policy. Ms. Lemieux noted the Easton policy is for
appointed and elected board/committee members. Lunenburg's is for employees. She liked the way
Easton's policy was worded and believed it was created by Mead, Talerman and Costa. Mr. Alonzo
did as well noting most of it is common sense.
Motion: P. Luck
2"d: D. McQuaid
To adopt the Town of Easton's Social Media Policy for appointed/elected board/committee
members with the removal of the word "rumors," from Section D(5) and removal of the word
"generally," from Section D(10)
Vote: All in Favor
Ms. Lemieux, going back to the Special Town Meeting warrant, noted the wording for the Home
Rule Petition articles going to the General Court for the additional wine and beer package off-
premise licenses states the license remains with that property. It was worded this way by legal
counsel because they have seen these licenses have a better chance of passing through the
legislature. Further discussion determined the wording for Lanni Orchards would remain the same
===PAGE 11===
Unitil.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Ms. Adams stated Homecoming is this weekend with a parade at Noon and a football game. The
following day is the Miles for Myles Run in conjunction with the Farmers Market near the
Middle/High School.
Motion: D. McQuaid
To adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
2nd: P. Luck
Vote: All in Favor
Respectfully submitted,
Elainem. Peterson
Elaine M. Peterson
Executive Assistant to the Town Manager