Follow the Harvard Press on FacebookFollow us on Facebook!  and TwitterFollow us on Twitter!

Thursday, March 11, 2010  ·  Contact Us Register  ·  Subscribe/Renew  ·  Login
 
Latest Headlines

News Articles
Selectmen approve town’s first two off-premise liquor license applications

Licenses will be issued with conditions; hearing defects debated

By the time blossoms appear on Harvard’s apple trees, or perhaps by Memorial Day, residents, for the first time in anyone’s memory, should be able to buy a six pack or a bottle of wine without leaving town.

With Selectman Tim Clark at home caring for a sick child, the Board of Selectmen voted 4–0 to grant one of Harvard’s three off-premises liquor licenses to Lyn Horowitz of the General Store on the town Common, and by a 3–1 vote to grant another to Robert Hirsch, owner of the Harvard Plaza on Ayer Road and the Grapevine liquor store in Boxborough. However, responding to concerns raised by residents, individual selectmen, and other town officials at public hearings held in December and January, the BOS voted to issue each license “with conditions,” which the applicants are required to meet before they can begin to sell liquor.

Press error sparks public input debate

When is a Board of Selectmen (BOS) public liquor hearing no longer open for public input, written or verbal? The answer, said Town Counsel Mark Lanza Tuesday evening, is whenever the BOS or the chairman, acting alone, says so.

On Dec. 15, after listening to public statements for and against the liquor license applications of Robert Hirsch and Lyn Horowitz, BOS Chairman Ron Ricci, without objection, declared the “public input” portion of the hearing to be closed. Later that evening, running short of time, the BOS, with the approval of both applicants, voted to continue the public hearing—but not public input—until Jan. 19, and asked for written input from a number of officials and the Board of Health. Later that week, in its Dec. 18 issue, the Press erroneously reported that residents could continue to submit written comments on the Hirsch and Horowitz applications until Dec. 30, to which several residents responded by sending e-mails to Town Administrator Tim Bragan. It was only on Jan. 19, after listening to additional testimony from the applicants and the Board of Health, and after reading letters from other town officials, that the BOS finally closed the public hearing itself.

In letters to the Jan. 29 issue of the Harvard Press and to the selectmen prior to their final hearing this Tuesday evening, Selectman Tim Clark argued that the BOS “inadvertently” violated the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law by ending public input on Dec. 15, while extending the public hearing. In his letters, Clark asked the BOS to “redo” its hearing by opening public input one last time. Clark wrote that he “could not find any statute” that prohibits written testimony “prior to the closure of a public hearing ... ” State law provides a remedy “for our mistake,” he added. “It’s called a ‘do-over.’”

In the end, the BOS discussed, but took no action on Clark’s request at its Tuesday hearing and allowed Ricci’s Dec. 15 procedural move to stand. Still, the debate was instructive.

Asked by Ricci for an opinion on whether to accept public input received after Dec. 15, Lanza, who was not present at the earlier hearing, said that Ricci, as chairman, has the power to “limit input by the public so long as the public has a reasonable opportunity to be heard.”

“I do understand,” added Lanza, “that some people may feel they didn’t get an adequate opportunity to give input … but I have to look at it as a lawyer, and from my perspective I don’t see a procedural defect.”

“Are we going to discuss this?” asked Selectwoman Lucy Wallace, after Lanza had spoken.

“Given what town counsel has said,” said Ricci, “I don’t see what good it would do.”

“With Fruitlands, we gave the public a lot of opportunity,” countered Wallace, referring to hearings begun three years ago that led to an on-premises license for Fruitlands Museum. “We did not shut out comment,” Wallace said. “You can stick very close to the law and say, ‘We followed the law, we followed the law,’ but there’s nothing wrong with saying maybe we weren’t fair, maybe we made a mistake. Well let’s try to be as fair as we can in accepting the input from the town.”

Selectman Peter Warren noted that the Dec. 15 had been recorded by the community cable channel. “People had ample opportunity to watch it, as I did today,” he said, “and we have done it due justice.”

“The fact we didn’t catch the error in the Press and post something [to correct it] is our bad,” said Selectwoman Marie Sobalvarro. “It’s sort of a game of gotcha. We didn’t note that the public could be misinformed. It’s not clear cut on our side.”

“It’s loud and clear on cable,” said Warren.

“Not everyone has Charter,” said Sobalvarro.

“I just don’t think we as a board should be held liable for mistakes made by the press,” said Warren.

“It’s not a liability issue,” countered Wallace. “I’m inclined to be fair. The paper [the Harvard Press] is the one we make all our announcements in. If people took the time, thinking there was opportunity to comment, then I don’t see what’s wrong with reading in a half a dozen e-mails to the record.”

“The Board can receive e-mails if it wishes,” said Lanza, “but,” he added, “it cuts both ways.” Some might have known that Dec 15 was the cutoff and been unable to respond, he pointed out, noting that to give others the additional time they were denied might be seen as unfair.

“We’ve all read the e-mails, so they’re in our head anyway,” Wallace said.

—John Osborn

The BOS also had to deal with the written concerns of Clark that public input had been prematurely cut off, as well as his request that the hearing be continued at a later date when he would be able to attend.

The four selectmen appeared to be evenly divided on whether to allow additional e-mails received by Town Administrator Tim Bragan from concerned citizens after Dec. 15 to be read into the record (see sidebar: “Press error sparks public input debate”). Town counsel Mark Lanza recommended against doing so. He noted that Chairman Ron Ricci had closed the public input portion of each hearing on Dec. 15 and said that from his perspective as a lawyer there “was no defect” in the process. Lanza likewise advised that a letter sent to the BOS by the Board of Health (BOH) on Jan. 20 was also inadmissible, though any concerns it expressed could be remedied by setting conditions on the licenses themselves. In the end, the BOS took no action on the post-Dec. 15 e-mails.

Though Selectwoman Lucy Wallace pressed for a continuation of the hearing until Clark could attend, applicant Hirsch, through his attorney Roy Pastor, said he would not agree to a further delay. And once it was clear there were sufficient votes among the four members present to approve the two licenses with conditions, the BOS proceeded.

With the questions of public input and schedule resolved, Lanza presented his “recommended findings” for each application, as well as the conditions he recommended be attached to each license when it is awarded. A final version of the findings and conditions will be attached to each application when it is sent to the state Alcohol and Beverage Control Commission (ABCC). The findings were based on comments received from the selectmen, acting individually so as not to violate the state’s open meeting law.

Key state criteria for issuing a liquor license are that it satisfy a “public need” and “protect a common good,” both of which Lanza said are ill-defined concepts. Both the Horowitz and Hirsch licenses arguably meet a public need, Lanza said, because Harvard presently has no liquor stores. The public good can be protected, he said, through the conditions he and the selectmen propose for both establishments, including a store manager or clerk who is at least 21 years old present at all times, and careful monitoring of the alcohol inventory, including use of video monitors. The conditions also require both facilities to comply with all town protective bylaws for signs and lighting, and for Title V and other health issues to be resolved. The “town has ample enforcement powers,” said Lanza, to deal with issues that might arise. Moreover, the conditions spell out that if the conditions are not met within six months of license issuance, the application will expire and the applicant will have to start the process all over again, including a new application, a new hearing, and new fees.

Both applications, along with a final draft of the selectmen’s findings and the conditions they have set for each property, next go to the state ABCC, which will review and further vet the applicants. Once the licenses have been approved by the ABCC, selectmen will issue a license to each applicant, but neither can actually sell beverages until the conditions of each license have been met. The selectmen are given only 30 days to act on an application, unless the applicant agrees to an extension, as Horowitz and Hirsch did twice. The ABCC, however, has no such time limits, and because it processes an estimated 15,000 retail licenses per year, according to its website, it could be weeks or months before Harvard’s licenses can be issued.

In the meantime, Selectwoman Marie Sobalvarro is at work on a liquor policy for the town that will establish the as yet undetermined license fees to be paid once the new licenses become active.

Filed under: News
Comments
 
 
Post Comment
 

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Enter the code shown above in the box below

 

Paid subscribers may browse the ARCHIVE for older News articles.

CLICK AN AD!
Turbo Lube
Rollstone Bank
PictureIt
Living Colors Landcape
Harrod Landscaping
David Alexander, CPA
Lawrence Academy Summer Programs
TAG Heating & Cooling
Kitchen Outfitters
Warren Design
Copyright 2006–2010 by The Harvard Press LLC  ·  PO Box 284  ·  Harvard, Massachusetts 01451  ·  Phone 978.456.3700  ·  Fax 978.274.5605  ·  Terms Of Use  ·  Privacy Statement  ·  Site Credit