Board of Health Meeting - April 15, 2026

Today is Wednesday, April 15, 2026. It's 5:02 p.m. This is the Dartmouth Board of Health meeting. So, I'm going to move to open this meeting with a roll call. So, Emily Michelle Olstead, current chair, is present.

Susan Murray, vice chair, present.

Jim Griffith, member, present.

Thank you. Excellent. Um, this meeting is being recorded and uh, as um, suggested by the Dartmouth Community Media, I'm going to read the following.

Good evening. Before we begin, Dartmouth Community Media has implemented updated Zoom safety measures to help prevent disruptions during meetings. Only board and committee members, town staff, and scheduled presenters will be allowed to turn on their video camera. All other attendees will be able to watch and listen, but video and screen sharing will be disabled. If you are scheduled

to present tonight or may want to be recognized for public comment, please make sure your full first name and last name is displayed in Zoom. I'll say this next part slowly because we do it looks like we have some folks who don't have their name displayed. If you need to rename yourself, click participants, find your name, click the three dots next to it, and choose rename again.

Click participants, find your name, click the three dots next to it, and choose rename. If you'd like to speak during public comment, please use the raise hand feature. If you're on a computer, you click on raise hand at the bottom of your screen. If you're on a cell phone viewing Zoom, click on participants, click on your name, and raise your hand. Um, if you called in by phone number, press star 9. And once I

or the acting chair recognizes you, you can unmute yourself. And then if you're calling in by phone, press star six to unmute. Once you've completed your statement, please mute yourself. If you have any technical issues, please use the chat feature and DCTV staff will assist you. Thank you for your cooperation.

Uh I it looks like we have a raised hand. Um I'll call upon Steven Helper.

Is this a question about the Zoom? This is a question about the Zoom rules, sir.

Go ahead and unmute.

It's public comment regarding the proposed nicotine and tobacco prohibition.

We are not on that agenda item. So, when we get to that agenda item, you can certainly speak on it if we as a a chair and a a committee call on you. But right now, all I've read are the rules for um for for Dartmouth Community Media. So, we have to go through the agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. So, we're going to go start on our agenda. Bear with me.

Going. Okay. So, our first item is to approve and accept the warrants for the bills payable period ending March 13, 2026 through April 2nd, 2026. Um Chris, did you want to uh share any notes with us for this?

So, this is just the bills for that period that you referenced. Um, if the board has any questions about a particular bill, uh, happy to answer.

Chris, I just had one. It looks like that the RS study guide, um, is for two staff members, but the amount seems to be different.

Um, there there were two bills. Um, and I just got to pull that up. Um, give me a second. No problem.

Uh that's a scrivener's error um unfortunately. So the amounts uh for each will be 88865.

Okay. Thank you for correcting that.

That was the only question I had. Um Vice Chair Sue Murray, do you have any uh questions, comments, concerns?

I do not.

Thank you. Okay. And member uh Jim Griffith, do you have any questions, comments concerns?

No, I'm good.

Excellent. All right. Um, so finding that uh the board of health members questions concerns were addressed, I move to approve and accept the warrants for the bills payable period ending March 13, 2026 through April 2nd, 2026.

We are actually going to vote by uh roll call. So Emily Michellestead, chair votes I. Vice Chair Susan Murray, how do you vote?

I.

And member Jim Griffith, how do you vote?

I.

Thank you. The motion passes.

The next item on our agenda is to approve and accept the meeting minutes from February 18th, 2026 and March 18th, 2026. Um, which I suppose we'll do this as um as two different items. Um, okay.

So, we'll start with February 18th, 2026. Um, I did not have any um questions, comments, concerns for this meeting. Um, Sumuray, did you have any questions, comments, concerns for this one? I was not present, so I'm going to abstain.

Sounds good. And uh member Jim Griffith, did you have any questions, comments, concerns about the February 18th, 2026 minute?

No, the minutes reflect what we did.

Thank you. Okay. So then, um and and Chris, I kind of skipped over you, but I'm assuming you do not have any notes on our minutes. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you. All right. So, uh, for February 18th, um, finding that there are no corrections, I move to accept the board of health meeting minutes from February 18th, 2026. The Emily, uh, Emily Michelle Olmstead, the chair, uh, votes I. Uh, vice chair Susan Murray, can you say your vote again, please, for the record?

Thank you. And member Jim Griffith, how do you vote?

I.

Thank you. The motion passes with one abstension. Uh, and then the next set of minutes is for March 18th, 2026. I did read through them, but since I was also um absent for these ones, I do not have any questions or concerns. Um, Vice Chair Susan Murray, do you have questions, concerns for um the minutes for March 18, 2026?

I do not.

Thank you. And member Jim Griff Griffith, do you have any questions, concerns for March 18, 2026 minutes?

No, they're fine.

All right. And now we'll vote by roll call. Emily Michelle Olmstead, chair abstains.

Uh, vice chair Susan Murray, how do you vote?

I.

And, uh, member Jim Griffith, how do you vote?

I.

Excellent. All right, the motion passes with one extension. All right, we're going to move into section one, which is appointments. All right, we're just a couple of minutes late, so we're going to start at the 5:02 p.m. appointment.

Um, I apologize in advance if I say your name incorrectly. We'll start with um Jiao J Varela flat 132 lot 82 at 16 Lynen Lane in Dartmouth which is a domestic animal permit request for the following 10 chickens hens um gameirds and two roosters. Uh usually we go to the applicant first. Is the applicant here to speak or applicant or um representative of the applicant?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Can you uh go ahead um identify yourself for the record, please, and then go ahead and speak.

Jan Vala.

Okay. Thank you.

Uh excellent. Um okay. Do you have anything that you um wish to to speak about this application?

Well, they they complain about my rooster. My roosters is only have one roosters in there. And then um in the night time I put them inside and then the door was open and then when they crowd during the night doing about uh after 12 or 3:00 in the morning that's why they complain about and um right now I just put them inside and I lock the door so it won't be no crowd no more.

Great. All right. Thank you. Um uh Chris um I do see uh you you had sent some notes to us. Um would you like to speak on this or any one of our other um board of health agents would like to speak on this one?

Sure. Thank you.

So, we did conduct an inspection um at the premises of Lindon Lane and we found that the applicant is um has undertaken measures to prevent the rooster from crowing um by having a darkened area that the rooster is kept in overnight. Um, so with that, um, I would just ask that the board, um, if they consider the application to require the rooster to be kept in the enclosed darkened space um, from sunset

until 7:00 a.m. Um, that's a customary practice. and also to um consider conditioning the permit as a temporary uh through a reasonable point in July of this year. Um we tend to get rooster complaints in the months of May, June and early July um because of the early um sunrise.

And this will allow the board to re you know to bring the permit back um in July um if the animal cannot be kept um in harmony with you know the um overnight hour expectations of the um neighborhood.

Thank you. And I I I think I see if if I'm looking correctly that um one of the other uh suggestions in the notes is that the crow collar um must be used within 7 days of receipt of any complaint for crowing during the hours when the rooster must be kept inside. Um do you um is it is that correct for this uh property as a suggestion?

Yes.

Okay.

I can see.

Okay. Um I think Chris, you answered the the questions I have at least um as of this moment. So I'm going to pass it to my other um board members. Um Vice Chair Susan Murray, questions, thoughts, comments?

Um I don't have any.

Great. And then um member Jim Griffith um questions, thoughts, comments?

I'm fine.

Excellent. Okay. Um so hearing um no other uh objections to this one and I'm looking in the audience. Is there anyone else who is here specifically for 16 Lynen Lane the domestic animal permit?

As a reminder, raise your hand and make sure your name is showing on Zoom please.

Seeing none. All right then I'll um move forward with the findings. So, um, finding that, um, the Dartmouth Board of Health agents, um, have observed that enclosures appear to be clean, that there's no evidence of rodents, that there's no odor, that feeding practices are preventative of vectors, that the rooster has a coupe that does not allow light to enter and a manual door that requires the owner to open and close

each day. Um, I um move to approve the domestic animal permit for um plat 132 lot 8216 Lynon Lane for 10 chickens, 10 game birds, two roosters um with the following conditions. That this is a temporary permit through July 20th, 2026. that the rooster must be kept inside from sunset to 7:00 a.m. and that a crow collar um must be used within seven days of receipt of any complaint for crowing during the hours when the

rooster must be kept inside.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Excellent. All right. And then we'll vote by roll call. Emily Michellestead, chair votes I. Vice Chair Susan Maria, how do you vote? I.

And member Jim Griffith, how do you vote? I excellent. The motion passes. Thank you.

All right, we're going to move on to the 5:04 p.m.

appointment. Uh, this is um again, apologize for any misspellings or misspeakings of names. Miguel Souza, plat 1469 at 11 Avenue, Dartmouth, Massachusetts.

a domestic animal permit request for 50 pigeons, 25 chickens, hens, game birds, four rabbits, four sheep, two geese, three ducks, and amending the permit to include one calf to raise for beef every year. Um, is the applicant or um their u representative here?

I don't see anyone.

All right, I'm going to bounce this to um Chris or one of our other Dartmouth Board of Health agents. Would you like to speak on this one?

Sure. Thank you.

So, an inspection was conducted at the property and the animal husbandry practices. Um there is an existing permit for a variety of animals and you know especially coming out of winter uh it's it it's a tough time to look at properties where animals are actively being kept especially hto because it really gives you a worstc case um review of the property. Um the animals are being kept you know in you know really

extraordinary conditions. So uh there are no concerns.

Okay. and it's and it's a more rural um area um you know than you know other parts of Dartmouth. So I just wanted to add that. Um thank you.

So if if I understand what you're saying by being more rural it is um less likely that the the sound of roosters would bother people. You you typically don't see as many complaints for roosters in rural areas.

That is correct.

Okay. Thank you. Let me just Um I I don't have any other um questions, concerns at this time. Um sounds all reasonable to me. Um I'll bite bounce to the uh vice chair Susan Murray. Thoughts, questions, concerns?

Yeah, I'm just curious. Um two questions.

if you know approximately how much land they have. And then the second question is um of everything listed on their permit, do they have all of that or or that just there because they might have it?

So we we try to stay away from permitting people to a um to what they actually have on hand. um you know so if someone is expressing an interest have some variability um then when we review the permit um application we look at it as at that potential so um because then if someone you know gets another one you know you so um yeah I hope that answers that as far as

the amount of acreage I can try to pull that up if you bear with me um it might take us you know um 30 seconds but um I would say at least an acre and a half.

An acre to acre and a half just on a visual, but I can pull it up.

Do they have a a barn or a structure for They do.

They do.

Yes.

They they have structures there um you know for the animals. The animals are just you know all the structures are new and um it's the animals are very well maintained.

Okay.

Actually it's.7 acres. Um no nope. I'm wrong on that. Hold on a minute. I was one property over. Um, it's 1.62.

Okay, that's all my questions.

Thank you. Uh, member Jim Gar, thoughts, questions concerns?

Uh, no questions. Seems good to me.

Thank you. Okay, so again, bear with me.

I have a lot of notes open here. Okay.

Um All right. So, um, finding that the the board of health agents have, um, indicated that the, um, that there's adequate area to keep the the large livestock, that there's, um, a demonstrated ability to keep animals within the interests of the board, that there's no public health or safety issues that were observed that would prevent the issuance of the permit. and for the rooster finding that um there's

an adequate area to keep that it's a rural area um and that the structures are new that there were no complaints and the rooers have been um present since last year um I move to approve the domestic animal permit for flat 1469 at 11 Alden A um for 50 pigeons, 25 chickens, hens game birds, four rabbits, four sheep, two geese, three ducks and one calf to days for beef each year um

with the condition that um this approval is temporary through July 20th, 2026.

And I get a second.

Second.

All right. And now we'll vote by roll call. Emily Michelle Olstead, chair votes I. Vice Chair Susan Murray, how do you vote?

I.

And member Jim Griffith, how do you vote?

I.

All right. Thank you. The motion passes.

All right. We're now going to go on to uh appointment at 5:08 p.m. which is the continued public hearing on the proposed Dartmouth Board of Health prohibited project products, excuse me, regulation for adoption. Um Chris, can I bounce to you on this one first?

Sure.

Um so I would ask the board to open up this uh public hearing uh by roll call vote. Um at the last meeting of the board uh they continued the public hearing for the purposes for the sole purposes of uh providing for a written comment period. Um and you know on that I will say that no written comments were submitted um following um the closure of the public hearing the board could then go into deliberations.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So then um per Chris's suggestion um we'll open the public hearing on the proposed start with board of health prohibited products regulations for adoption. Um so Emily Michelle Olmstead chair votes um I vice chair Susan Murray how do you vote to open?

And member demograph how do you vote to open?

I.

Excellent. Okay so that this hearing is now open. Um so Chris um apologies. So I wasn't here uh for the last meeting. So, um, right now because it's a public hearing, this is where we can, um, get public comment. Um, is that correct?

If the board wishes to extend that, um, that's that's, you know, the board's pleasure.

Because, um, because there was a public hearing at the last meeting and we accepted um, written comment. Correct.

Correct.

Okay. And this is specifically this is specifically on prohibited products regulation.

Correct.

Okay. Um sorry, bear with me again. I have a bunch of notes.

Okay. And no comments were received in writing. Okay.

So then we could, this is where I'm I we could close the meeting if if we as a board feel that enough um time has been given for public comment on this matter.

Correct.

That is correct.

All right. Um it it sounds like I mean so I'll I'll start as chair. If we've already had one hearing on this and then we allowed public comment, um it makes sense to me that we would then vote on this just based on what we've done in the past um just for that precedent. Um and it seems like that that seems to be enough time. Um so I'm I'm not sure why

we wouldn't vote on this um to you know I I I am in favor of closing the public hearing on this and voting um again since ample time was given in my opinion. Um, Susan Murray, what are your thoughts or questions, concerns?

Um, I think that's all very logical.

Agree.

Thank you. And then member Jim Griffith, thoughts questions?

Uh, just for completeness sake, do we have anyone on this call who has a question or would like to say something?

Okay. So, yeah. So, then it sounds like Dr. Uh Jim Griffith would like to continue the the the the public hearing on this.

Um do we need um do we need a uh Chris, do we need to um since since this is a public hearing, it's already been opened, we can proceed with comments.

Correct. We don't need a further vote to allow comments or not. Correct.

That is correct.

Thank you. Okay. So all right then.

Can you please repeat it again? The last time the another gentleman spoke comment about what? Yes, we are right now. Thank you for your question. Um, so right now this is a comment on the prohibited products regulation. I I'm making this distinction because um I do see people here. We have another item later on the agenda that is for the tobaccof free generation, but we are not on that

agenda item right now. This is only for the prohibited products regulation for adoption. Um that was discussed last uh board of health meeting and um we allowed uh comment and writing. So if you are still here to speak specifically on that keep your hand raised so that way um I suppose we can see if it it sounds like if we have further comment on that um that is good for us to know

as a board. So I do still see um Jay Shaw there is a raised hand. So go ahead please identify yourself for the meeting and go ahead and speak.

Sorry uh I'm just trying to understand what was the exact uh meeting was about because I missed it last meeting.

Yeah, the propagation of the illegal saying illicit products.

Chris, do you think you could give a better Sure. I'm gonna ask Chris. Chris is um more um he's he's put more work into this. I'm hoping Chris could give a much better summary than I can. Um what the the prohibited products. Could you give a maybe a two sentence summary?

Chris, did you hear what I said?

Thank you. So, the town of Darw has existing prohibited product regulations.

The regulations that we have have an appendix A. Within that appendix A, it lists a variety of products. Those products go under um numerous trade uh numerous names. Um they're marketed sometimes as incense, poperri cleaner.

Um to keep it brief, uh the products are marketed in a way that is uh targeting to youth and oftent times um you know uh revealing of the psychoactive um effects of the product. Um so that really keeps it short. Um this hearing today is about and the hearing that at the last meeting was about um going after um new products that have uh since um come on to the market since the board

first adopted these regulations.

And that's uh briefly as I can put it.

Thank you. No questions.

No questions. Okay. Um I would ask for for organization if you don't mind um unraising your hand that would be um helpful again as we keep track. Thank you very much. Okay, so I'm looking for any other raise hands.

I don't see any. Thank you again, Chris, for for giving that that summary. Um, so um All right. So, I don't see any other raised hands and again um we we've given a lot of um I think a lot of time on this and it sounds like my my board members agree. So, I would be in favor of of moving forward to um to approve this and I'm just going to double check

my notes. Sounds like we would it would it would be that we would move to approve appendix A of the um Dartmouth Board of Health. Um is Chris, help me out with the wordings. Dartmouth Board of Health prohibited products regulation appendix A. Is that is that correct?

So we would ask to close the public hearing to then deliberate and then take any action.

Okay. Close the public hearing first.

Thank you very much. Okay. So all right.

So then we are going to um um close the public hearing at this time. So um Emily Michellestead chair um moves to close the public hearing finding that there are um no um other comments and no written comments were received. Can I get a second?

Second.

Susan Murray seconds. Thank you. All right. And now we'll vote by roll call.

Emily Michelle Mstead chair votes I.

Vice Chair Susan Murray. How do you vote?

I. Member Jim Griffith, how do you vote?

I All right, the eyes have it. So, uh, the public hearing is now closed. Um, thank you, Chris, for for um specifying that um procedurally. So, now we as a board can deliberate since the public hearing is closed. Correct.

Correct.

Okay. And so one potential option we as um as a board could do is we could um move to approve appendix A of the um proposed Dartmouth Board of Health prohibited products regulation. Is that is that correct wording?

That is correct.

Thank you. Um as I understand it from from reading over past minutes um I think we we shared as a as a board we shared similar concerns. I think we are in favor. And then I believe if we were to approve appendix A that would allow us um procedurally it would be easier um if and when this this list needs to be updated since products do change. That's my understanding. Um so I am in favor of

of approving it. Um vice chair Susan Murray uh thoughts, questions, concerns?

Where do you stand?

I think we had a pretty good discussion last time and I am um good to move forward.

Good to move forward with approving it.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you. Okay. And then um member Jim Griffith, what are your thoughts? Um where do you stand on this?

Uh I'm okay with moving it forward. I remain curious as to um how we will be uh updating appendix A as time goes on.

But I raised that question last time.

For my sake, can can I be reminded of what the answer is? Um, is it just it has to go to town council? Refresh my memory please.

So, the way in which we would update the list is by the discovery of new products. Um, we are also looking at uh some potential other alternatives um to um maybe put in addition to the um working section of this regulation. um that is not part of appendix A. It's part of the actual technical sections of the pro prohibited product regulations.

Um but it's really about just you know keeping a pulse on the industry and um you know as soon as those products are found um you know just bringing them to the board um to see if the board wishes to further regulate and then if so then um moving forward with the public hearing.

So unfortunately um go ahead to try to be proactive and try to get ahead of those products. Um it's still going to require discovery and proving and then enforcement. Um, and sometimes it's better to I I think we'd probably be on a parallel track and, you know, not have the town in potential enforcement situations that could cause um, you know, liability to the town with um, you know, town council expenses.

If I if I'm understanding what you're saying to cut down on on town council expenses which are are not nothing um by keeping this in appendex um we we or just we just have some options to change it in the future. Is that the correct summary of what you're saying?

Um no just and and if how how are we discovering these products? Um you know yeah and it's it's it's by discovery.

It's by you know keeping a pulse on the industry being in in the establishments.

um you know and that's you know pretty much how um you know I we've looked at how other communities have done it um and I I have some questions I about how they're doing it. We're looking at it um because we still have um another aspect of these regs that are not before us today and that's the that's with respect to the nitrous oxide um you know we are looking at that as a restricted product

um and being prohibited in some um sales locations. Um so as we await that review from town council uh we'll be you know looking at how some other communities have adapted um their regulations se separately and seeing if there are any vulnerabilities and talking to council about that um when we um when we get into place with his review.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Um, okay.

I think I understand. Um, member Jim Griffith, do you have further questions?

Um, I'm I'm assuming that uh were we to approve appendix A today that that is uh subject to our revising it someday down the road upon discovery of um like products. That would be correct.

Okay, my my question again, um just my my apprehension about this. These products are horrible. Uh and I'm looking to defend the young people of Dartmouth, even though they might not feel the need to defend themselves. Uh and the people who make all these products, it's pages and pages that appendix A constitutes. Um uh I I'm I'm certain they're just going as municipalities like us take action like

this um they're going to change the name. So um I I will I will have a a continuing interest in in how we update this.

Understood. I I think I understand at any rate. All right. Um, okay. Member Jim Griffith, do you have any other questions, concerns before?

No, I'm fine.

Okay. All right. So, at this point, we have closed the public hearing and I have heard from um all of our members.

Um so, um I suppose we'll we'll take a vote now. Um unless again, um I think I've heard from all of my members. Okay.

So, see, I'm just going to double check my notes. Bear with me. I have a lot of things open right now.

All right. Um um so finding that um another public uh hearing was um opened and closed that there were no further um written comments since um the last public comment period and that the members um are in favor. Um, I move to approve um appendix A of the proposed Dartmouth Board of Health prohibited product regulations for adoption. Can I get a second?

Second.

All right. And now we'll vote by roll call. So Emily Michelle Mstead, chair votes I. Vice Chair Susan Murray, how do you vote?

I.

And member Jim Griffith, how do you vote?

I.

Thank you. The motion passes. Okay. So, we are now moving on to section two, old business in the Dartmouth Board of Health agenda. We're going to start on item A, which is the update on the mass C noise policy revisions. Um, Chris, I'm going to bounce this to you.

Thank you. So, at the last meeting of the Dartmouth Board of Health, there was an agenda item on the Mass D uh discussion document and uh the potential to submit comments.

Mass D was seeking comments on a proposal to revise how they essentially define noise as an air pollutant.

comments were submitted um expressing concerns with the vagueness of the document so you know that we could understand fully what this means as it would apply here and since that time mass D has extended the comment period I also did a records request on the department to access any of the comments that they had received in that first period uh I received them actually a few hours ago

So, I did a quick perusal of them and um it was very interesting because um it seems like overwhelmingly the industry is in favor of this. Um and I'm talking industry. I'm not talking you know residential properties talk it's a lot of it's energy industry um and then there was a you know another you know vehemently opposed to the changes. Um so we don't know where this will go. Um it seems as though based on

that first round of comments that the lines are drawn in the sand. Um it seems like this is u being pushed by industry um particularly you know the battery storage um industry um where they're looking to capture energy off the grid, excess energy, store in battery storage facilities. And these storage facilities need um blower air uh fans to keep them cool. Um, and that often times these

battery storage facilities are either needed or desired in rural areas. Um, and when you have all these fans running, it may be problematic if you have a nearby sensitive receptor. Um, so, you know, time will tell what happens after this current comment period closes um at the end of April um to see what happens with mass D. And that's all.

Thank you. Um, so you do and you do not need action from us as a board tonight.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Um, okay. I'm trying to think if I have any I'm I as a board member, I'm definitely concerned about this. Um, you know, it's something, um, I remember, you know, in my public health career, you know, learning that noise, you know, is a is a pollutant. Um, but, you know, it makes sense. So, um, you know, I I appreciate you keeping us updated on this and, uh, yeah, I'll be interested to see where this goes. Um,

so those are my comments as a a board of health member. Um, uh, Vice Chair Susan Murray thoughts questions concerns?

Um, I don't have any at this time.

All right. And member Jim Griffith, thoughts questions concerns?

Yeah, I'm okay.

Thank you. Okay. Um, all right. Since there's no action needed and um pro procedurally um do we need to um ask um those uh anybody else for comments?

Um that's at the you know the pleasure of the uh chair.

Okay. Thank you. Um I do not see any hands raised on the mass DP noise policy revisions. Um okay. So we'll move on from that. Okay.

So, um, section two, old business item B, which is the update on the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection composting petition. Chris, can you take this one, please?

Thank you. So, the um meeting was held with Mass D between the town of Dartmouth uh and the department and the um mass D responded. um they have 10 days following the meeting to respond and uh they did um you know they had they essentially say we've got what we already knew. Um they've got revisions to their 310 CMR 1600 rig so they'll um you know there might be some things that happen um that satisfy our

concerns. Um, we knew that, um, the goal, um, of the petition was to hopefully get them to look at those issues that are factual, that have been experienced here in other communities and to make them move the needle on their um, revisions and provide a little bit more protection um, than what had been reported. Um I believe it was in January of 2020 when they talked about those draft regulations uh that have

since been stalled. Um and also to hopefully get them to push those regulations out. Um because you know really the general permit process um anything that requires any bit more scrutiny on the application end of it um will provide some relief um to the absence of any protection that the general permit process provides at this time. So um that's all uh no action needed by the board.

Okay. Thank you Chris. I don't think I have anything else to to ask or or talk about at this time. Um, Vice Chair Susan Murray, anything to add?

No.

All right. And member Jim Griffith, anything to add?

I'm just curious if Chris has any sense of when the next movement point will be.

I mean, I understand that, you know, they're jocking and we're jocking and and I and we're trying to understand where they're headed. Do we have any idea that there might be some clarity in a week, a month, a year, a decade?

I wish I could answer that, but I'll give you a little bit of background. Um so in February of 2020 they announced not fe January February of 2020 just before everything went into uh lockdown um you know they announced uh these draft regulations and the potential for changes with certain putressible waste requiring a higher level of permitting if it was for composting. Um yes co um

you know created a lot of disruption for a while um and then in 2022 uh mass D um at an official meeting stated on the record and it's in their meeting minutes that yeah we've got these draft regulations but we don't want to push them out during a you know a gubanatorial election. um which I get that but you know that was four years ago um and here we are today so um you

know what's been and now we're in the midst of another election cycle so I wish I could tell you um you know unfortunately sometimes they move painfully slow thank you okay sounds good and I don't See any other raised hands on the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection composting petitions?

No. Okay. All right. So, then we're going to move on to section three, new business, item A, reorganization of the board, annual appointments and operational policies and procedures. Um, so, um, Chris, do you do you want to speak briefly on this? I have a question, but you might answer it if if uh depending on if you had something that if you wanted to give this an introduction.

Sure. Um so I'll just try to take a um you know a you know a a moment just to kind of talk about this topic in general. Um so annually the board uh reorganizes and you know sets the chair, vice chair, representatives to various uh committees in town. um also just makes the annual appointments for the board's agents and also uh there is a policy and procedures document that um

we ask the board um to approve and um I believe all the members have that and essentially that just kind of takes you through those very very common business items that we often um encounter um and just asks you you know for the efficiency of the delivery of services to the public that we can um do that on a day-to-day basis and um not have to um you know bring it into a board of health

meeting um you know you know I think one of the topics might be like renewal of certain permits um for example um or issuances of certain permits and then also there's some spending um items that are in there um So, um those spending items that are listed in there, um to provide some flexibility, um we've certainly changed how we've done um our spending now that we just list everything at the top of

every meeting, um rather than seeing prior seeking prior authorization, um each leg each board cycle. Um but I think it's good practice just to keep that in there. um should something arise that we fell outside of a one-mon cycle um we got to get bills moving. Um so having um that flexibility on those common bills to spend up to those amounts um you know for example um you might see in there Billy Ves um for uh

contracting for dead deer disposal. Um we spend about $9,000 a year um on deer disposal from our public ways. Um, so we don't want to fall behind on our bills.

Um, and then also having that board signatory, um, should a situation arise that we exceed $400, the statutory limit that staff can sign, um, then, um, the board signatory could sign that bill in excess of $400, um, for those items that aren't listed if we fell outside the 30-day um, meeting cycle that we've been following.

And that's all.

Um let me ask you procedurally Chris. So um we probably I imagine this would be a deliberation between board members where we decide um each position and then um when it comes to actually voting can um what can be grouped together um as as one motion and what needs to be separated? Does that make sense my question?

Sure. Great question. So I would ask that um you know with the reorganization of the board and the appointments that that to be uh specified um you know with detail to the names uh and the um you know like chair for the board, vice chair for the board, representatives soil board. Um but with respects to the policies um you know this is a standard document that we've had for some time.

Um, you know, it just, you know, we could I could do a really quick um rundown on that. Um, and if anyone had any questions, um, happy to answer.

Um, there's one operational policy, one that I um can see and recall that um, says that we um, number number seven, we need to designate one member of the Dartmouth of Health to sign bills over 400 to expedite the processing of bills.

And yes, I I see the little asterisk.

Um, so basically since you're saying we do not need to designate someone for that because we um have been doing our procedure um at at each meeting is am I understanding correctly?

So you don't have to um it's good it's good practice too.

Um okay because it again if if for whatever reason um no one saw what was coming you know in 2020 um long range.

Um so having a board member that could sign if we if all of a sudden we went two months without a meeting um you know we'd at least be able to have a board member coming in sign those bills over $400 and not having uh you know late penalties.

Gotcha. Okay. So, we should also have someone designated. Okay. And then, um, we could I I understand I believe what you're saying. We need to name everyone's names and what positions that they are. But let's say we as a board are in agreement on who is a chair and who will be vice chair. Um, and and same with the other positions for reorganization of the board. That could be all one motion. Is that correct? We

could say we, you know, I move to have so and so as chair, so and so is vice chair, etc. That could be one motion.

Yes.

Thank you. Okay.

Um, okay. Um, I don't think I have any other um questions before we as a board, you know, talks amongst ourselves. Um, Susan Murray, do you have any questions, I suppose, before we discuss?

No.

And member Jim Griffith, how about you?

Any questions before we discuss?

No, I'm okay.

Okay, thanks. Um, okay. So, I suppose we'll we'll talk about um chair first.

Um, I guess I'll just ask is there anyone among us who um would like to be chair?

I'll say I I don't mind doing it. Um, you know, I I I try and keep it as organized as possible. Um, but I also certainly don't want to um, you know, uh, take the position from someone else if if uh, someone else um would would like to do that. And um, also um, I'll say this too and and Chris um, correct me if I'm wrong. If we do have a meeting

where um for whatever reason I cannot be chair, we can have an acting chair for that meeting. Um and too, we could always reorganize at a certain time in the future if something wasn't working.

That's my understanding.

Yes, the vice chair can fill in um if the chair is unable to.

Okay. Thank you. Um I'm very happy for you to stay as chair.

Um, and I wouldn't mind staying as vice chair.

Sure. Okay, I'm fine with that. Um, member Jim Griffith, how do you feel about that?

They sound perfect to me.

Sounds good. All right, so then we'll keep that. Um, historically, I have been the soil board representative. Um, I don't pretend to be um the most knowledge knowledgeable about soils. Um, but I do I am a soil evaluator and I find it interesting. I don't mind being the soil board representative um unless um one of my other members um opposes that.

No opposition. Jim Griffith thought?

That's fine.

Sounds good. Okay. And then the water quality committee. Um I think what's hard about this one uh because I am interested in water quality, but we don't yet know how often they meet. Like I my concern is a time commitment quite honestly. Um I believe um Sumer you you were the the one as of last the as last meeting. However um maybe this was thought to be temporary. I'm not sure.

Just is there someone who would like to be the water quality committee representative um at least to start.

I I wouldn't mind staying it. I I've thought about it since the last meeting.

Um and if if no one else wants to go for it, I'm I'm perfectly happy to to be on that committee.

Great. I think that sounds wonderful. Um Dr. Jim Griffith, are you okay with that?

Great.

Excellent. All right. So then, um we'll take care of this first one. So then I move to have um Emily Michelle Olmstead as chair, Susan Murray as vice chair, um Emily Michelle Olmstead as the soil board representative, and Susan Murray as the water quality committee representative. Can I get a second?

Second.

All right. Um now we'll vote by roll call. Emily Michelle Olsen votes I. Uh, Vice Chair Susan Murray, how do you vote?

I.

And member Jeff, how do you vote?

I.

All right. So, that motion passes. And now we'll go for um annual appointments.

Um, very quick deliberation. I I see um from from the years that I've been on the board of health, there's there's no reason why we wouldn't appoint these people as um as as each of the designated roles. Does anyone have any opposition to this?

No.

Okay. Thank you. Right. Hearing none.

All right. So then I move to appoint um Donna Ferius, Ariel Enos, Mallalerie Kieran as the health and sanitary inspectors, to have the director of public health be uh Christopher Misho, to have the public health nurse be Mora Rhymer, and to have the board members um uh the following board members be agents of the board of health, which is Emily Michelle Olmstead, Susan Murray, and Jim Griffith. Can I get a second?

Second.

All right. And we'll vote by roll call.

So, Emily Michelle Olmstead votes yes.

Or I, excuse me. Um, Susan Murray, how do you vote?

Yes.

And, uh, Jim Griffith, how do you vote?

Yes.

All right. The motion passes. And then, um, um, I guess I'll I'll ask first because I I it sounded like Chris offered further explanation if we needed it for operational policies. Um, and actually I'll I'll just ask this really quickly.

So Chris, if um if we as a board are so moved, we we can approve operational policies, fiscal year spending approvals, and the building permit review policy all is as one. Is that correct? And that's that's the rest for this section. Correct.

Yes.

Thank you. Okay. Um, are there any other members because I I think I've been on the board longest, so I believe I understand this part. Are there any other members of the board who wish for Chris to give uh further explanation just on the building permit review policy?

Sure.

So the town of Dath Board of Health has supplemental regulations to title 5. uh within a section of the supplemental regulations to title five, there is a um a provision in there that requires the board of health um to approve all building permits for a property that is served by a septic system. So, an existing house. Um, there are provisions for new houses, but if you have an existing house and there's a

building permit being sought for more than minimal or cosmetic. So, if you're putting a new roof on, uh, new siding, that's not what this is about. Um, it's about um, you know, substantial renovations. So because the way in which the regulation is um the section of the regulations is worded and it's been in place since I believe 1995 um there is this policy that has been a long-standing policy and what this

policy does is it stops the um it provides consistency to the um application of the regulation and it stops it from being overapplied. So in other words, um it sets up thresholds um for determining compliance with that regulation. Um and I just want to just put out one disclaimer. Um I am paraphrasing so um you try to keep this short. So, if someone is, you know, going into a property and and

substantially uh renovating the property, maybe they're going to gut out the whole first and second floor and improve the value of it by more than, you know, 50%. Then we have a requirement that they do a title five inspection.

Make sure that before you invest that kind of money into the property that the septic system is functioning um and not failed. uh we you know certainly during my time I've seen a few instances where someone undertakes you know um an improvement and then later the system fails and then um you know they're you know having trouble paying for that installation but it also sets up criteria um you know

if we don't know where the system is you know the great thing is some people are enjoying very long lifespans out of their septic systems um But the septic system predates uh modern designing uh and we have no idea where it is on the lot. So they may have to give us a component location plan by a um title 5 inspector. So we can be assured that the you know a garage um addition off of a

house is not going to interfere with the setbacks in 310 CMR 15211. Um so you know that's that's a a summary as best I can. Um, if you have any more questions, happy to answer.

No questions. Thank you.

Member Jim Griffith.

I understand. I get it.

Excellent. Okay. Um, and then, um, really quickly because we do need to designate someone. Um, I'm happy to be the design if we need someone to sign something. Any any opposition from further members?

No.

Sounds good.

Thank you. Okay. So then um I move to um approve the operational policies, the fiscal year um 2026 spending approvals um and the building permit review policy of the Dartmouth Board of Health. Um also with Emily Michelle Olmstead being the designated member of the Dartmouth Board of Health to sign bills over $400 to expedite the processing of bills um for the Dartmouth Board of Health.

Can I get a second?

Second.

All right. Um, Emily Michelle Olmstead, uh, chair votes I. Vice Chair Susan Murray, how do you vote?

I.

And member Jim Griffith, how do you vote?

I.

All right. Thank you. The motion passes.

Um, I don't believe there are any others that are within the reorganization of the board. All right. So, we're going to go on to um three, new business, section three, new business item B, which is the environmental site assessment for 8082 Milton Street. Um, is the applicant or representative of the applicant here tonight? Um, as a reminder, please make sure that you are named and um, go ahead

and raise your hand. I'm looking to see if I see anyone.

No. Okay. Um, Chris, it doesn't look like I don't see the applicant um, representative here. Do you want to fill us in on this, please?

Sure. Thank you.

So, the town of Darbath Board of Health has land development and reuse regulations.

Uh, these regulations are uh designed to require screening of properties that are redeveloped from a former listed use to a um a use that would provide uh more exposure to potential contaminants um that are associated with these um industries. So, for example, um with this property in particular, um 8082 Milton Street, um was a long-term auto salvage um property. Uh the auto salvage

industry is um like many others is, um moving away from mom and pop businesses to bigger businesses. Um and consequently, um you know, this property on Milton Street is transitioning away from auto salvage and redeveloping into residential single family house lots.

So, in response um to the board's regulations, the applicant um or the owner of these properties um submitted uh this report that is before the board.

Uh what I can tell the board is that that report does not meet our requirements. Um we have specified requirements. Um while it seems quite voluminous um it is a paper study. Uh the paper study is only the beginning to which to guide um the most important phase of the environmental site assessment which which is the soil and the groundwater exploration and that is not part of this report and

it is required by the board's regulations. So, as such, I would recommend that the board vote to engage a third-party consultant to review this environmental site assessment.

I do not expect that the um applicant will pay the fee because I've already had discussions with him and he is going to go ahead and have his consultant um complete the second half of the work.

The reason why the board has to vote to engage a third-party consultant is that the way our regulations work um if the board doesn't take any action then what would happen is is this would approve by default irrespective of its completeness or incompleteness.

So, by the board voting to engage a third-party consultant and I would we have used Ripper Hawk Environmental LLC in the past out of Lakeville, I believe.

Um I believe it's either Lakeville or Middle um as the consultant and I would recommend an amount of $1,500 to be placed in a 53G account. The $1,500 is paid by the applicant. So, the applicant does not have to pay the $1,500, and I don't expect that he will. Um, but what this does is it preserves the board's right um to make sure that we get the full report. Um, and then when

that full report comes in, that'll come back before the board.

Thank you, Chris. Um, I do Can you remind me because I I remember seeing this for a past environmental site assistant, but I I can't recall. there were logical reasons why we named using Riverhawk Environmental. Um, as the consultant, can you remind me um maybe it was conflict of interest or or um that we agreed to do it, can you remind me why it's a good idea to name them specifically um even even knowing what

you just said as far as this is really for us, you know, protecting ourselves and it probably won't come to be, but remind me why you you recommend using Riverhawk Environmental, please.

Thank you. Uh we've re we used Riverhawk um at least one other time if not two.

Um they they had a very fast turnaround time um in reviewing it um and providing us you know with comments um and their um they were very very competitive um from what we saw. So between, you know, their their pricing and their turnaround time, um, and the town has also used Riverhawk on other projects through the, um, at least I don't know if they've engaged them yet, but I know there's two

projects with the board of appeals where they were onboarded as a consultant.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Um, that was the um, the question I had. I I I think everything you said has has made sense and um you know definitely want to make sure that we um are are aware of our own requirements and that we um you know cover ourselves for that. So I'm in favor. Um Vice Chair Susa Murray, thoughts, questions? Um where are you at with this one?

Um I have a lot of questions but I don't think any of them are going to uh change the decision but I I guess um understanding is there any recourse to regain this these fees?

Um especially if there is we find contamination in the soil andor water or there's just no recourse for regaining the fees.

So the fee is paid by the applicant um to the town. The monies are then deposited into a um a 53g account which any monies left over at the end of uh the you know that the board's consultant get returned to the applicant. Um so if contamination was found um or if it's not um it it if it's found it then puts it into mass DP's hands. Um we do not

have any role with regulating um oil or hazardous materials.

Right. I I guess I misunderstood then. I thought you said the applicant would would not pay the $1,500.

Correct. Because he he is going to go ahead and complete this. But because he submitted this incomplete report to us, we still have to act.

Right. So I guess I'm saying is there a way if he refuses to pay the 1500, is there a way to recover those funds? So it put essentially it puts this um report into into limbo into hibernation.

So we will not expend any funds. Um it just it just dies. Um so it just it'll just sit here waiting for him to pay or to submit a complete report. So we will not util we will not be spending any funds. We will not engage Riverhawk until such time that um the you know that he would put that money in you know into the town's custody and then we would proceed.

Okay. So then this is a way of triggering that piece so that it doesn't default into by default being approved.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. member uh Jim Griffith thoughts, questions, concerns, where are you with this one?

Uh just one more thing on the fee. If um if the applicant completes their study with their um expert, uh does that mean that we don't do ours?

So when the applicant would bring back a complete report to us, I would bring that back to the board for the board's consideration as to whether or not they want to um you know accept it or to retain a consultant.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I'll just take a brief moment and see any other hands for this one. All right. Um, so I'm going to go ahead and uh make an attempt at a motion. So, um, finding that this property was a a former automotive junkyard and that um, we as a board have regulations that require an environmental site assessments and that we have a certain time frame um, in which we must act otherwise um, it will be approved by

default. Um, I um move to uh retain a thirdparty consultant to review the environmental site assessment for 8082 Milton Street and for the consultant to be Riverhawk Environmental and that the applicant shall forward funding in the amount of $1,500 for the review and the funds will be deposited into a 53G account with remaining funds being returned to the applicant.

Can I get a second? Second.

Second.

All right. And we'll vote by roll call.

So, Emily Michellestead, chair votes I.

Vice Chair Susan Murray, how do you vote?

I.

And member Jim Griffith, how do you vote?

I.

All right. Thank you. The motion passes.

Right. So, now we are on section three, new business, item C, which is the discussion on tobaccofree generation.

Um so um I'll I'll give the the summary as I understand it and then um Chris I'll have you um jump in and fill in any other um gaps. So um we were contacted about um about having a presentation from um nicotine free generation and um my understanding is this is not a a hearing about we don't have anything drafted. It's just whether we want nicotine free generation to just speak

to our board. That's that's all we are discussing as I understand it. Um but Chris um help me out um add anything or correct me if procedurally I um provided an incorrect summary and you are muted. Oh, there you go.

That is correct.

Excellent. So, okay. So, it's not a public hearing and anything else would would just come in the future. All right. So, I'm going to um thank you for raising hands. I'm going to start with my board members. Um, so, um, I'm gonna again I'm gonna discuss with my board members first, then we'll go from there.

Um, as a reminder, um, make sure, um, names are are written out, please. Um, okay. So, um, uh, Susan Murray. Um, well, I guess I I can start. Um, as I understand it, this would just be a presentation from this group. Um, I think there would be multiple steps in what we as a board would do if we were um, in favor of it. Um, I kind of honestly I go back and forth,

but I am only one member of this board, so I certainly don't want to decide for us even as the chair. So, um, again, I I'm somewhat ambivalent on whether we want the, um, the presentation from the nicotine-free generation. However, since we have heard from them, um, I wanted to make sure that we discuss it as a board.

So, those are my thoughts on it. Um, I'll jump to my vice chair, Susan Murray. Um, again, the question on the table is, you know, whether we want the nicotine-free generation just to give a presentation to us as a board.

Um, I I I've only read a tiny bit online about it. Um, so I don't know a lot. Um, and I have mixed feelings about uh presentation.

Thank you. All right. Um, anything further before we continue?

Um, not for me.

Thank you. Okay. Just making sure. Um, and uh, member Jim Griffith, um, what are your thoughts or questions on whether we have the nicotine-free generation give a presentation to our board?

I'm happy to hear the presentation.

Okay.

So, it's if I'm understanding correctly, Susan Murray and I are are uh maybe undecided about hearing the presentation, but Jim Griffith is in favor. Um, by math numbers, I suppose that that puts us into probably closer to the category of of um of of having them come. I I'm trying to name options here. Um and again I I you know I want to stay within the confines of um open meeting law and making sure we we

know what to do. I suppose our options if if we didn't decide that we wanted them to come soon is it I suppose this is something that we could come back to after a certain amount of time. Um I suppose as a board too we probably could decide what our priorities are as a board for what we want to talk about for public health. Um I I know I I have

talked to um to our director Chris about um additional um you know regulations that that could be updated. So, um um I I you know, we could we could we could not to say table it because I think that's too formal of a motion, but um it's the kind of thing that we could talk about um even after we've prioritized what our um again what what we want to accomplish as a board in the next year.

Um, so I think that's that's maybe where I lean at this time is is not moving forward with nicotine-free generation presentation, at least not until we've talked as a group um to see what else we want to accomplish.

Go ahead, Susan Murray.

I I agree with that. I actually would not really like our agenda um dictated by an outside group.

Um, so kind of thinking it through and hearing what you said, I I guess I would be against them coming at this point.

Um, I also and I don't know because we're not in an open meeting right now or not in a public hearing.

Public hearing.

Um, I don't know, but I I I also feel, you know, there's a lot of people here that have have sat through this whole meeting. Um, and I I don't know procedurally, but I would also be interested in hearing why they chose to come. They're clearly here for this.

Yeah. Thank you. All right. Let me um let me bounce to to Jim Griffith and then yeah, that's a good point. Um and I I'll say one thing and then and then we'll get to the raised hand. Um member Jim Griffith, um what are your thoughts on us deciding as a on pausing with um nicotine free, tobaccof free generation?

I'm sorry if I'm saying the fruit name wrong. um pausing on their presentation until we as a board have um discussed our priorities. What are your thoughts on that action?

Um I'm still in favor of hearing the presentation at this sooner rather than later.

Yep.

Okay. Thank you. Um All right. Um so let's see. So Susan Mary, you're right.

I I don't disagree and and you know we I I think we are, you know, for the public. So um excuse me. We are all interested in hearing um public opinion, but I do also want to say it is 6:13 PM and I I want to be cognizant of time. I know I have a hard stop at seven. So, let me I'm gonna bounce to Chris first.

I see the raised hand. Stay with me.

Chris, I want to bounce to you first so that I understand um do you have any suggestions for how we do this procedurally so that way we have order but also um I guess kind of what our options are so that way um um you know we we're aware of time while being reasonable. Does that make sense?

Yes.

Um, so you know you can afford like you know standard practice you know is you know the executive branch and legislative branches of Massachusetts you know three minutes per speaker.

Three minutes per speaker. Excellent.

Okay. So let me um so excellent. Okay.

Thank you for um explaining that. So um and I guess sorry Chris. Let me Well, no. You know what? I I changed my mind.

I'm going to pause. So then at this time, do me a favor to everyone in the audience, please raise your hand only if you want to speak. So that way I can get an idea of of how many speakers that we have given what you just heard.

Okay. So I see one for now. All right.

I'm gonna um I'm going to set a timer.

Um bear with me and I'm going to call on and I Okay, I see two. All right. Stay with me. and it helps me please put um put full names in your Zoom names and I'll read the um Dartmouth uh community media. So, the way you do that is if you need to rename yourself, click on participants, find your name, click the three dots next to it, and choose rename. That's going to help. Um okay,

so let me get the timer set up. All right, so I'm going to call I'm going to go as best as I can in order. So, we're going to go on um Stephen Heler first.

All right. Um, go ahead, Director Olmstead. I'm a little confused. Uh, I rather not uh bore the uh board of health until they are actually uh considering this generational tobacco ban. Uh right now it seems to me that you are considering whether or not to have a presentation.

That is correct. the for for the record for everyone to know and I'm I paused the timer. Um this is just if they are going to have a presentation to our board. All right, I'm starting the timer again.

All right. Well, I will speak against the um generational tobacco and nicotine ban and I will read you my reasons. My name is Steven Hurer. I live in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I have been intending meetings via Zoom around the state because this is something that is being promoted uh town to town and even on the state level. Uh I am with an organization called Cambridge Citizens for Smokers Rights. We accept no uh

funding from any source whatsoever.

Immigrants of color owners that sell tobacco and nicotine products.

This prohibition may not close their businesses, but would hurt and reduce their resale value.

Brookline merchants suffered overall sales declines when the town imposed this prohibition.

The ability to run a business, a small business, and support a family is a cornerstone of public health.

If the tobacco industry is trying to attract youth, it is not succeeding.

The CDC reports teenage smoking at a 25year low. The FDA reports youth vaping at a 10year low and their nicotine pouch use remains low.

A generational tobacco and nicotine ban does not affect youth at all. It simply erodess the autonomy of adults.

Massachusetts adults 21 and over are considered mature and educated enough to decide whether or not to buy alcohol or marijuana, both of these are intoxicants.

Are they not competent enough to make their own decisions regarding tobacco and nicotine products, neither of which impairs judgment are compromises driving ability?

This proposed ban tells young people under the age of 21, not only are they presently considered not mature enough or not educated enough to make decisions regarding tobacco and nicotine, but they will never in their lives uh be considered competent to make these decisions.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. And uh forgive me. I'm I'm trying to keep order to this as chair.

It's uh so I I am not trying to distract. I just want to be as organized as possible. Okay.

So, okay. Um again, I'm trying to go in order. All right. So, I believe I saw um Jay Shaw, please um go ahead um unmute, say your name um for the record because unless Jay is the first name um and go ahead and begin, please.

Hi, my name is Tisha. I uh work at the retail stores for past 17 years and I oppose the NFG uh ban because it takes away the rights from the individual citizen of Massachusetts as well as it also uh takes away the revenue from the immigrants and it also does not work effectively and it is also is not even enough for other industries such as marijuana as well as the alcohol

and all of these uh NFG rules are especially targeting the small businesses. That's what it seems especially in retail industry and it's affecting the immigrants a lot and they are hardworking and they spend a lot of time in that retail store building up and they're losing a lot of uh their money because of the because of it.

I would recommend not to even see the presentation as is not feasible for the small businesses or and therefore livelihood.

I have seen numerous cases where small businesses protects uh teenagers rather than promoting it.

As well as NFG in Brooklyn, it did not work at all. According to the CS news, it has increased about 21,000% of illegal sales in Massachusetts.

So it will further push all the uh uh responsible smokers to purchase somewhere else as well as it also affects the economy of Massachusetts because as there are 7,000 small retail businesses who supports their families especially for the youngsters who are going to the college where do they do not have enough opportunity in the other retail market And these small little stores provide them uh opportunity to

work and uh pay their bills for the housing or the especially for colleges.

It also helps the retirees because it gives uh retirees and single parents because it gives them the flexible schedule to work. If the small retail store cannot make money, how can they survive and how will how it will also affect all of the surrounding economy and the local economy and the state economy.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to just pause for a second. Chris, is there a way do you know for me to tell the order in which people raise hands because I I I'm trying to go in order and it's difficult for me to tell right now as a host. Do you have um another way that um that you suggest so that way um again we keep this organized?

Yeah, unfortunately, uh, no, but you know, the good thing is we don't have a lot of people, but you know, from this point forward, we can do some, um, damage control, and I'll just write down, you know, the order in which it's appearing, and then if anyone else raises, then, you know, we'll know who's coming in after the, um, we only have three right now. So, great. Thank you. I would appreciate

that. And I I apologize, folks, trying to um trying to keep track of this. I thought technology would have solved this. I believe the person identified as um Chitan Chatan was next. Um go ahead.

Um can you please Oops. Uh say your your name for the record and you can unmute and you can speak again. Chan Chatan.

Hello. Yes, Chan.

Um actually I see the email. I'm the business owner in Dartmouth and uh I see the email from the board of health. So I was like uh see is this joking or what because the one one like they smoke smoke tobacco and the if we like a prohibited like more than 21 years they know buy the tobacco. So they go other town like we have the very close to westport town we have a very close here

New Bedford we have a very close town they go there and they buy the cigarettes. So our uh we loses the revenue even like town we we pay the like our cigarette fees like every annual renewal fees and everything. So actually we losing the revenues plus like uh um uh Dartmouth town we like uh have some dispensary for smoke like so my question is is is this for the only for nicotine or for the uh smoking

smoking free town it means then you have to smoke marijuana too after 21 years.

So if they impose this law we have to like uh smoke free town then we have to prohibited everything like a marijuana or the smoke other like uh ecigarettes and everything like so I not understand like uh so this is the I'm clear about that like uh you not like uh to prohibited this like a 21 and more years uh not by the tobacco or the not the nicotine or anything and If

they impose this law, it should be like a for the all all smokeless mis marvana and everything should be prohibitated then. Clear. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Um Chris, are are you able to tell me who's next? I mean, if you wouldn't mind, please um un raise your hand um so that way we um know. Um I'm I'm not exactly sure that I know who's next.

Chris, if if you do know who is next, let me know. Otherwise um yes I think go ahead it's um and again sorry if I'm um mispronouncing but it's Parish Parish okay thank you Parish can you please unmute and it is your turn to speak hello board good evening uh my name is Pares Patel um I'm calling from Cape Cod and um I really appreciate um Mr. Hner um Mr. Sha and Chhatan statement on these u

I am completely opposed to these regulation. I recommend board to don't even waste your time. These regulation does not make any sense at all. I'm not sure how much board knows about NFG regulation.

These would put your local citizens if I born today I'll be able to buy it and if I born tomorrow I won't be able to buy it. I hope you understand what I'm trying to tell you. It's going to be so hard for the retailers to implement the restriction who we can sell and cannot.

Even after you implement this kind of regulation, the person get 30, 40, 50 years old, they were never able to buy the product of their choice.

I rather encourage the town of Dartmouth to educate the kids. I'm 50 plus years old. I have my oldest son just graduate from the Suffuk University. He's looking for a job. I send him to a college because we know we are struggling as a minority business and I guarantee you that you probably have a 25 people listening this conversation and you find one person from the corporate store here opposing

this they're not going to be on this zoom call they don't care about none of these things I just wanted to know why we are getting punished about these all the time we are been struggling the state removed the menthol cigarettes and all the flavors already gone long time ago one after other regulation after regulation you trying to talk about this I see the board not in whole favor of it but I

just wanted to know that restriction like this it doesn't make any sense we have nothing to sell I I don't know like if you go to the convenience stores I'm not talking about kumbal farm or noria or whatevers they have a different plan of business we are not we are not in that category we are small moms and pop store we get up in the morning we work all day wrong trying

to educate my son. He's 22 years old. I have to educate him. I have to take care of him after 21. Whatever he wants to do, I'm not going to stop him. He doesn't smoke. He doesn't do nicotine.

Sometime he drinks alcohol. I don't tell him no because that's his choice. He's old enough to make his own decision. So I request that please do not do that.

And if this is that serious then why state is not taking action on this?

I don't know who's coming to give you a repres you know the presentation about NFG are whose payroll are they on? They are just doing these things because they have to spend or they have to prove that they are working on to do whatever they're supposed to do. This is completely okay garbage. I would recommend that totally throw in the trash can. Thank you so much for listening.

Thank you. Okay, Chris, can you please tell me who's next?

Paula.

Paula, thank you. Okay, go ahead, Paula.

Um, please unmute yourself, identify yourself for the record.

Paula Coat, Paula Coat, you can uh, excuse me, you can unmute yourself, please. Um, I'll read how to do it on a Well, it's not on a phone, right?

Oh, hi.

Yes, go ahead. Thank you. I apologize.

My fingers were not working. So um thank you members of the board um for letting us speak. Um I am uh respectfully um Oh, I had everything right in hand. Sorry.

Um, if this ever comes up to your agenda, I am respectingly urging the board not to approve a nicotine free generation ban. Uh, while I support thoughtful evidence-based efforts to reduce youth nicotine use and protect public health, this proposal raises several serious concerns about fairness, effectiveness enforcability and unintended consequences.

Uh first, the policy creates a permanent birthy yearbased prohibition that treats adults differently under the law. Two individuals standing side by side, both legal adults, would be treated unequally based solely on what on when they were born. This raises fundamental concerns about equity, consistency, and the ability to make a personal choice. Is it fair that at age 18 at 18 at at age 18 a

man or woman can be in the military fight in a war and even take another human's life while defending their country but they still have to wait legally until they are 21 to have a drink smoke a cigarette or put a nicotine pouch in their mouth. I can't imagine saying to that individual that comes into a store, sorry that you killed for your country, but your day you're a day short on the cut off date

and you cannot have any nicotine products. But hey, you can go over to that cannabis store and buy all the different flavored pot gummies you want.

Second, there is limited real world evidence demonstrating that generational bans are more effective than existing tobacco control strategies. Approaches such as strong retailer compliance checks, license and enforcement, penalties for violations, and targeted education campaigns have more of a proven track record and can be strengthened without introducing a lifelong prohibition. Third, um, this

policy risk creating unintended black market sales, and this will happen.

There will be no control at all about what ingredients are being put into these nicotine products being sold on the street.

You know, it's bad enough when you hear that someone took drugs that they bought and they were laced with fentanyl.

Um, this could be u banning nicotine.

You could be facing the same problem.

They could lace pouches, vapes, cigarettes. Right now, the state and towns do have a pretty stronghold on all the restrictions put in place. You ban nicotine, you will have no control at all. When legal access is denied to one group, but remains available to others, it can encourage social sourcing or elicit sales. And this undermines regulatory oversight, reduces product safety controls, and may ultimately work

against public health goals.

You will put plenty of plugs in business if you don't know what a plug is. is a person that is contacted by text.

You have a drop off time in a place. You exchange money and you get a product.

They're anonymous people. There's Thank you.

But anyways, thank you very much for uh letting us speak. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Chris. Is there anyone else on um the list? Um, as a reminder, um, please, uh, unra your hands once it's your turn, so that way I'm trying to make sure we get to everybody.

Chris, do you see any other hand raise hands, um, that were raised?

I do not. Other than um, Paula having her hand raised again, that's all.

Okay, thank you. Okay, since um, I want to give everyone one chance to speak.

Um, okay. Let me ask you um, I'll stop sharing, too.

Okay.

Okay. Um Chris, let me make sure again procedurally because the only thing that that this is about since we have no regulations drafted or anything like that, it's only on if we want the presentation as a board and we've heard from the public at this time, would we um we will deliberate as a board. Would we need a formal motion um or not?

is my question.

I believe that it's really how the board wants to engage um how the board members want to engage with each other on this topic. Um it could, you know, it can just be, you know, a discussion or if you want to really formalize it, um so that each member takes a hard yay or nay, then uh it could be by vote.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. So, I we here's here's where I stand and then I'll open up discussion to my other board members having now having heard all this. Um, I I do want to organize us as a board at a future meeting for for what we want to accomplish for ourselves. I I do not want the presentation at this time. Um and I think I think we need to decide

for ourselves um where this aligns and what we want to do again for the next year um before um we have the presentation. I I understand I you know as a as a scientist getting more data but um there's only so much time in a day or time in a meeting in our case um and I I want to figure out where this falls and how important it is to us compared to other public health

considerations. That is where I stand.

Um I'm not going to ask for a formal vote yet because um now having heard from the public, I want to hear each of each of us um and specifically what you think about that as far as um dis well Chris, I don't I don't I don't want to disobey open meeting laws because we cannot talk about something that's not an agenda. So I'll just say um I do not

want to um move forward on this at this time is where I stand.

Um, Vice Chair Susan Murray, I also would not like to move forward at this time.

Okay. And then, um, member Jim Griffith, uh, I'm happy to defer. Um, but, uh, I think we need to talk about this eventually.

Thank you. Okay. Um, All right. I don't think um since Chris has made it sound that we do not need a a formal uh vote um unless we as a board want it. I I think that this is just a discussion and I I believe I understand where everyone stands and we are not going to have the presentation um at this time. However, I'm going to open up to either of my

other two members. If one of you wants a formal vote, please speak now.

All right. I hear nothing from my other members. So at this time we're going to move forward with the agenda.

All right. So section three, new business item D is the board of health meeting upcoming meeting schedule and determine if it is in person or via Zoom. Um okay, so we're looking at May.

Um Chris, we're aiming for four weeks from today. Is that correct?

Or or within four within 28 days.

Correct.

Correct.

Oh, but um wait, but is it is it there might be it would be and and then um it would be an official meeting uh if if there if more members went to the May 4th information session. Is that correct? Can we can discuss that because it would be a meeting? Yes. So what we would do is out of formality we would you know just you know even if you know

we would just post to be safe um that there'd be an in-person meeting um for that water quality discussion on May 4th at round the ben farm um and we would post that and if you know we don't have enough members if only one member shows up then obviously we don't even have quorum to open and close a meeting and we would just put meeting canceled um you know um to follow that agenda um

since there'd be no minutes.

Got it. So, we don't even need to talk about May 4th because it's going to be posted out of safety and then orum basically determines what happens.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay. So, then we're looking at four weeks from today for our other our next um you know quote unquote normal meeting where we have, you know, the procedural item sets like we discussed today. So, like looking for the 13th or earlier. Is that is that what I'm seeing correctly?

May 13th or or or before then?

Does that sound right to you, Chris?

So, right now we have May 15th as a target date. Um, I believe we had set that meeting or is it No, May 15th is a Friday.

Friday.

Okay. No, I'm I'm just I've got too many I got two calendars now, so it gets a little busy. So, no. So, it' be May 13th. You're correct. I'm sorry.

No, no problem. Okay. Um, May 13th is a Wednesday. um this this 5:00 pm slot on a Wednesday has has has been okay for me um other other folks we'll start with you Susan Murray does that does that work for you yes it does okay and Jim um Griffith you may have a conflict but um let's hear what you have to say regardless on May 13th I'll be in Helsinki

am I am I correct that you will be are you gone the entire or the majority of the month of May from the 8th to the 28th So then if we didn't do the 13th and we did the sixth, it could include um Jim Griffith, is that correct?

Yep.

Chris, is that something you could work with? Are there drawbacks to to to doing May 6 out of curiosity?

No, that's that's whatever the board, you know, you know, this is the board's um you know, moment, so whatever the board wishes, so that works, you know, for sure.

It helps to know just on the chance that there's something I'm missing because obviously the drawback if we continued on the 13th would be missing member but I wasn't sure if there are any drawbacks on your side. Um Susan Murray, could you do Wednesday, May 6th at 5:00 p.m.?

I am not sure.

Okay.

There's something on my schedule, but I actually don't know what it is.

Okay. Um, is it the kind of thing do you want? Do you need like a couple of minutes to try and figure that out?

I'm I'm texting someone.

Sure. Okay, no worries. And then um while you figure that out for May, Chris, do you um or or anyone, I suppose. Do you do we want to pick um Oh, we can't really pick June if we don't know when May is. Right.

Correct.

Okay. All right. Well, I was trying to save time, but uh that's all right. Well, or or I mean I could ask this too. Um um time constraint wise, we could what if we tried if if May 6, for example, um is does not work for for Sue Murray if we tried a a a different um day and time? I mean, we could we could do that, right?

I mean, why not? Um Chris, were there are there any other would you like me to ask the members first about that week before I bounce to you or would there be days that um um would not work on your end?

Nope. I'm pretty much wide open, you know, in May.

Okay. Um uh Susan Murray, would there be another day on that week before May 8th that you could do?

Um, and I should I should preface and say evening is going to be um more likely for me to be able to attend um because of my schedule.

I could I could do the Tuesday.

um similar time. Um I actually I I think I can do that Wednesday. I'm sorry. I just got That's okay.

Yep.

No worries. Well, I'll be on So, I'll be honest. Wednesdays are much easier for me. I would prefer to stick with Wednesday if we can make that work.

So, so you think Wednesday the 6th at 5:00 PM does work for you?

Yes.

Excellent. All right. And that does work for you too, right Jim Griffith?

Um yeah, I could do that. I could also do um some other day in May depending on the time zones if I could do it by Zoom because I physically won't be in the country. But I I'm happy to do some other day if that's better for you.

I I don't I you know just in the interest of time and someone making an executive decision here if you're traveling I I appreciate the effort but I don't I don't see why we don't just stick with May 6 when you're still um here and that way um I think that just sounds easiest unless someone else is this is truly a hardship speak now but I I say I think we should just go with May

6 at 5. Um yeah.

Okay.

Okay. Awesome. So then the next board of health meeting will be Wednesday, May 6th, 5:00 pm.

All right. 56. Would you would um Susan Murray and Jim Griffith would you like to pick the June meeting? Is that helpful now that we are an official board?

Um hold on. I'm sorry.

Okay.

Uh I also have multiple calendars.

Okay.

Um yeah, I'm sorry. I can't make the six.

Okay.

I'm so sorry.

No worries. That's all right. Let's let's jump back to Tuesday, May 5th. Um um uh if if we were to do a a late afternoon or evening meeting on Tuesday, May 5th, Jim Griffith, would you have any um com or would anyone have any conflicts with a with a a Tuesday, May 5th afternooning meeting time?

I can do it.

Okay. And Susan Murray, because you said Tuesday, May 5th could work.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. What uh what what what what time could you what's I guess like the the earliest you could do it? I I personally prefer not to go too too late. So that's why I I mean I like you know the four or five o'clock slot if we can make that work.

Um yeah, I could do earlier on that day.

Could you do maybe four o'clock? Does that potentially work?

Yeah, I could do that.

Okay. Thank you, Jim Griffith. Um Tuesday, May 5th at 4 o'clock. Does that work?

Excellent. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Fine.

4 PM. All right. Will be the next May board of health meeting. Okay. Do we want to decide June now?

Yes. No. It's helpful for you, Chris, right? It helps.

I think it's helpful for staff for, you know, purposes if we can have like, you know, two to three months planned out.

Um.

Okay. Sure. What I would recommend for June though is is because of you know the um and I think it's going to work out perfect would be for May we'll have you know the uh Tuesday the 5th. Um if by some chance we landed four weeks later which would be Tuesday the 2nd. Um then we'd be probably looking at you know the 30th which then you know gets us out of the fourth of July week.

So, we'd have two meetings in June if that Tuesday um pattern held.

Gotcha. I I'll be honest, Tuesday is not my first choice day. I c I can do it.

It's um it's a very long day for me. Um um I Wednesdays are significantly easier. Um but I I see your point, Chris.

Wednesday is fine for me.

Okay. I know we're making an exception because of, you know, it seems like May is a little a little squirly with everyone's calendars.

Yeah.

Um Okay. Okay. So, if we do if we do Tuesday, May 5th, 2, three, but okay. So, we couldn't meet if we couldn't meet June 3rd. Correct. We would have to meet May 26th or or I'm sorry, we would have to meet that if we were to meet on Wednesday, we'd want to meet on Wednesday, May 27th to obey the 28 days. Is that correct, Chris?

So, if we meet on May 5th, we would be hitting the 29 day mark at um June 3rd.

June 3rd, which would be fine. Um, we could do it. You know, if we had a situation because of the way agenda's time and everything else and post things, then, you know, we'll address that then. But, you know, I think we should be fine.

All right. Um, that that would be my preference. Um, Wednesday, let's say Wednesday, June 3rd. Um, sticking with this five o'clock slot. Um, Susan Murray, would Wednesday, June 3rd at 5 o'clock work for you?

Um, yes.

Yes. Okay. And um Jim.

Yeah. Yep.

Okay. Sorry. I can give you a moment.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay. And then um Jim Griffith, Wednesday, June 3rd.

Yeah. Good.

June 5:00 p.m. Okay. That's Wednesday, June 3rd at 5 p.m. And then we'll pick July. And then I'm sorry, we'll jump back about um and we'll determine I guess we'll just stick with just May for determining in person or Zoom at this time unless someone objects. So for July um Okay. One, two, three, four. Okay. So then that puts us So so so July 1st I see what you mean. Well anyway Wednesday July 1st is um

um would be four weeks. So could we does that work or um are people um traveling that fine that works for you? And um Jim Griffith does that work for you as well?

Yep.

Wednesday July 1st we and let's stick with 5:00 PM Chris. Is that is that okay with you? I know you said that that week is um July 1st. July 1st is sorry.

Excellent. Okay. So, here's what I have written. May 5th at 4 p.m., Wednesday, June 3rd at 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, July 1st at 5:00 p.m.

Okay. So then, um so I think again for now, if if you guys are okay with it, we can like I'd rather just um decide now if we're decide, excuse me, just for just for the next meeting. So just May in this case whether we're in person or Zoom. Um I think that's kind of been working based on what we have for um for for hearings and such. Does anyone object to that?

No. Okay. So then um does anyone have a strong have a preference for um May being um Zoom or in person? Um I'll I'll speak first. I I um it's a it's a little bit easier. Oh yeah. especially because um yeah, May 5th, I'm coming from the Cape. So, it will make it will give me more buffer time if we are um in Zoom as opposed to um in person. It's not

impossible. Um but I would prefer Zoom on May 5th. Um but that's just me. Um or you're fine with that, Jim Griffith. Are you okay with that, too?

Yeah.

Cool. And then hopefully maybe for for June or July or both, we could we can go back to in person. All right. So May 5th is um is by Zoom. Awesome. Okay. Um Chris, are there any other um meetings um um upcoming meetings that you think we should schedule at this time within this agenda item?

I think that works. I think we're at good shape.

Thank you.

Excellent. All right. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. So, then we're going on to section four, which is any item not known 48 hours in advance. This item is information only and not for deliveriberations by the public body. Um Chris, do you have anything?

Nothing.

Okay. Um I do not have anything either.

Um Susan Murray, do you have anything?

No.

And Jim Gvet, do you have anything?

No.

Okay. Um All right. So, it is 6:49 p.m.

on Wednesday, April 15th. This is the Dartmouth um Board of Health. Um I move to adjourn the Dartmouth Board of Health. Can I get a second?

Second.

All right. And now we'll vote by roll call. Emily Michellestead, chair votes I. Susan Murray, vice chair, how do you vote? Hi.

And member Jim Griffith, how do you vote?

I.

Excellent. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone. Have a great evening.

You too.