Your area Not set — showing everywhere
Meeting report · Select Board
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Select Board — June 23, 2026

Plymouth Select Board discussed Landers development waiver at June 23 meeting without listing it on the agenda

Routine items passed without debate, but the Landers development generated sustained public comment from 19 speakers with repeated questions on process and impacts.

Date Tuesday, June 23, 2026 Duration 3.1h Speakers 30 Public comments 19 Decisions 5 Lively

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.

At the June 23 Select Board meeting, the board devoted substantial time to the Landers/Sheridan development and its earlier conditional waiver of the right of first refusal. The waiver had already been executed and recorded at the Registry of Deeds. The item was not on the published agenda, so residents received no prior notice that this high-impact decision would be discussed or defended.

Multiple residents questioned the MOU's enforceability, limits on sand extraction, trail access, traffic effects on Cedarville precinct roads, and protection of potential Wampanoag artifacts. The board responded that the waiver was the only legally and financially feasible path within the required timeline and that the town is currently in safe harbor from unfriendly 40B projects. The recorded MOU will now guide future Planning Board and ZBA permitting.

The same meeting also covered the board's decision not to opt into the state's late-night liquor sales pilot and resident questions on the five-year budget forecast assumptions. Monthly financial reports are scheduled to begin in August.

Jun 23, 2026 3.1h long 30 speakers 19 public comments 5 decisions Lively
Notable statements Drag to browse

“I do not think it would be in the best interest of the town to opt into this legislation”

— Unidentified speaker · Liquor hours discussion ▶ 10:15

“We are going to start seeing having monthly presentations of monthly financial reports”

— Unidentified speaker · Budget forecast response ▶ 31:34

“I stand by the decision that the conditional waiver was in the best interest of the town”

— Unidentified speaker · Landers/Sheridan development ▶ 54:07

“A conflict of interest is defined as a financial interest of yourself or an immediate family member”

— Unidentified speaker · Defending filing of disclosure forms regarding personal relationship with developer Sheridan while asserting the decision served the town's interest regardless of friendship ▶ 1:58:40

“next week's select board meeting on June 30th, we will be discussing our 10% affordable housing goal strategy”

— Unidentified speaker · Response to public questions on affordable-housing definitions and strategy ▶ 1:34:19

“the number one community input that we received, again, was on affordability”

— Unidentified speaker · Defending the ROFR waiver decision as balancing housing needs identified in the comprehensive plan ▶ 2:20:40

“right now we're currently in safe harbors so a 40B couldn't be utilized against the town right now”

— Unidentified speaker · Clarifying current safe harbor status and ongoing efforts to maintain it ▶ 2:07:10
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

40B-scale development with 10% affordable units and 40% open space under recorded MOU

What happened

Waiver already executed and recorded; no reconsideration; MOU will guide permitting process.

What was discussed

Projected shortfalls of $1.4M–$14.5M under current assumptions

What happened

Board acknowledged concerns and committed to increased transparency starting August.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board observed a moment of silence for former Selectman Jean Lane and journalist Bobby Clark.

What happened

Board and audience observed the moment of silence.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board approved multiple licenses as listed without discussion.

What happened

Unanimous approval (Cohen, Quintel, Canty, Chair all yes).

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board declined to opt into state pilot allowing liquor sales until 3 a.m. and public consumption in designated districts.

What happened

No formal vote taken; board declined to opt in, with notice to be sent to all liquor license holders the next day.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Manager reported on SBA disaster loans for February blizzard, reopened tennis courts and swap shop, upcoming wastewater planning meetings, landfill testing, and staff recognitions.

What happened

Report delivered; board members asked clarifying questions on SBA outreach.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Resident Roz Jones urged deeper analysis of expense growth assumptions in the five-year forecast and faster action on looming deficits.

What happened

Board acknowledged urgency and described planned transparency steps including department-head budget presentations with multiple scenarios.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Residents and board members debated the conditional waiver of right of first refusal on the Landers property, preservation versus housing needs, and enforceability of MOU terms; extended discussion covered access roads, 40B density, traffic, sand removal, and related bylaw revisions.

What happened

The conditional waiver and MOU have already been signed and recorded; board described the outcome as the best available balance of limited resources and preservation at no cost (including 10% affordable units required), though acknowledged it is imperfect. No new decision or reconsideration of the waiver; board reiterated the ROFR waiver was the only financially and legally viable option and that the town is currently in safe harbor.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Landers/Sheridan development and ROFR waiver

Multiple residents raised concerns over preservation of open space and artifacts, traffic impacts, sand removal volumes, vague MOU language, affordable housing definitions, and perceived conflicts of interest in the board's prior conditional waiver decision; the topic drew the largest number of public speakers.
Board position: The conditional waiver and MOU were the only financially and legally viable option within the 120-day window; the waiver is final, recorded, and binding on future permitting while achieving 10% affordable units and 40% open space at no cost to the town.
high concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
19
Speakers
19
Comments
8
Addressed
10
Partial
1
Not addressed
Don Williams
Addressed
Clarified the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan process, noting citizen advisory committee work dividing precincts by sewer likelihood for presentations and Q&A sessions. Key concern
Explaining CWMP precinct grouping and upcoming public meetings for sewer questions.
Board response
Chair thanked him for the clarification.
Board acknowledged the information and moved on without further questions.
Christine Cody
Addressed
Asked whether the change from 'public comment' to 'public question and answer' means questions will actually be answered during the session. Key concern
Clarification on whether the format allows for responses to public input.
Board response
Chair confirmed that questions would be answered and explained the difference from regular meetings.
Direct answer provided on the format change and engagement rules.
Roz Jones
Partial
Critiqued the five-year budget forecast assumptions, particularly the unrealistic 4% expense growth rate for police, fire, and DPW, and urged urgent action and transparency on the looming deficits. Key concern
Accuracy of expense growth projections and lack of deeper analysis or executive sessions on fiscal issues.
Board response
Chair outlined the new monthly financial reporting process starting in August and revised forecast in September; other members added context on forecasting limitations.
Board explained upcoming process improvements but did not commit to immediate deeper dives or specific actions on the concerns raised.
Anna Malalao
Partial
Advocated for a Wampanoag land acknowledgement and raised concerns about the Sheridan development vote, lack of artifact investigation, school overcrowding, and overdevelopment in Cedarville. Key concern
Preservation, ethical voting on development, and infrastructure strain from growth.
Board response
Mr. Canty and Chair explained the right-of-first-refusal decision, conflict disclosures, and balance between preservation and housing needs.
Board addressed the vote rationale and process but did not commit to new investigations or policy changes on development.
Ms. Holland
Partial
Critiqued the vague, unenforceable language in the Sheridan MOU regarding trails, easements, and wastewater, and questioned lack of housing commitments or bonds. Key concern
Enforceability of MOU conditions and absence of guarantees or housing specifics.
Board response
Mr. Canty explained that the MOU runs with the land, will be reviewed in permitting, and contains concrete preservation requirements; Chair added context on pre-engineering timing.
Board clarified the legal mechanism and process but acknowledged some language is aspirational pending engineering.
Smith
Addressed
Expressed disappointment in board members' conflict assessments regarding the Sheridan vote and reminded them of their duty to represent citizens. Key concern
Ethical conduct and representation in the development decision.
Board response
Mr. Canty reiterated his conflict analysis and that the decision would have been the same regardless of personal relationships.
Board member directly responded to the ethics concern with his reasoning.
Pat Adelman
Addressed
Asked about potential 40Y zoning for the Landers property and its impact on the MOU. Key concern
Zoning pathway and enforceability of conditions under 40Y.
Board response
Mr. Canty stated 40Y is speculative, would require town meeting approval, and the MOU would still apply through permitting.
Clear explanation provided on zoning process and MOU applicability.
Patrick Downey
Partial
Questioned the use of executive session for the Landers decision, lack of alternatives explored, fair market valuation, sand mining potential, and fiduciary duty to citizens. Key concern
Transparency, valuation, sand removal risks, and alternatives to the waiver.
Board response
Mr. Canty explained executive session rules, why the coalition offer was not viable, and differences from 71 Hedges sand issues.
Board addressed process and sand concerns but defended the closed session and valuation approach.
Carol Beggs
Partial
Expressed concern that sand removal protections depend on a single inspector and asked if the MOU waiver is final with any legal recourse available. Key concern
Long-term enforceability of sand protections and finality of the waiver decision.
Board response
Chair confirmed the waiver is recorded and final; Mr. Canty noted the earth removal bylaw review is underway.
Board acknowledged finality but pointed to ongoing bylaw work without guaranteeing outcomes.
Patty Cummings
Addressed
Asked how the developer will access the Landers property if the Hedges Pond easement is unavailable and whether it would route through existing neighborhoods. Key concern
Traffic and access impacts on Great Woods neighborhood.
Board response
Board explained the intended easement on Hedges Pond Road and that engineering plans are not yet complete.
Direct response on planned access route and current status of plans.
Eric Cody
Partial
Raised concerns about sand mining on the Landers property given prior ZBA denial and urged better definition of 'incidental' removal in the bylaw review. Key concern
Preventing large-scale sand extraction disguised as development.
Board response
Mr. Canty noted the bylaw review committee is examining the issue and the current inspector has a stricter definition than previously.
Board confirmed ongoing review but could not guarantee specific bylaw changes.
Lauren Melillo
Partial
Questioned the definition and guarantees of 'affordable' housing in new developments and advocated for incentives for year-round housing over seasonal/Airbnb use. Key concern
Meaningful affordability and year-round housing stock.
Board response
Chair and members explained state AMI definitions, safe harbor goals, and attainable housing ranges while acknowledging limitations.
Board clarified definitions and strategy but noted state-level constraints on true affordability.
Jane Schatz
Addressed
Thanked the board for the meeting and urged them to regain trust by handling future decisions more transparently. Key concern
Restoring public confidence after the development vote.
Board response
Chair acknowledged the feedback and committed to transparency on future decisions.
Board accepted the comment and reaffirmed commitment to transparency.
Laurie Downs
Partial
Asked how residents can hold the town accountable on sand removal and whether the earth removal bylaw will be ready for fall town meeting. Key concern
Accountability mechanisms and timing of bylaw reforms.
Board response
Board indicated the bylaw review is in progress with consultant RFP underway and likely spring 2027 timeline.
Timeline and process explained but no immediate accountability tools offered.
George McKay
Addressed
Thanked the board for visiting Precinct 8 and promoted the upcoming 250th anniversary events and potential charter commission discussion. Key concern
Community engagement and long-term government form review.
Board response
Board members thanked him and noted the events.
Positive acknowledgment and promotion of the events.
Caleb Stoloski
Partial
Highlighted generational housing affordability crisis, environmental justice, aquifer protection, and need for policies supporting young residents staying in Plymouth. Key concern
Housing attainability and environmental stewardship for future generations.
Board response
Chair and Mr. Canty acknowledged the concerns, discussed economic development efforts, and explained state limitations on second-home taxes.
Board engaged substantively on housing and jobs but noted state-law constraints.
Michelle Peterson
Addressed
Expressed traffic concerns for Great Woods neighborhood from the new development and asked about access road plans. Key concern
Ingress/egress routing and neighborhood impact.
Board response
Board confirmed intent to use Hedges Pond easement and noted engineering not yet complete.
Specific access plan described.
Bill Lawrence
Partial
Critiqued vague MOU language and expressed concern over perceived conflicts of interest affecting board integrity. Key concern
Enforceability of agreements and ethical standards.
Board response
Mr. Canty reiterated disclosure filings and that the decision served town interests.
Ethics rationale restated but MOU vagueness not fully resolved.
Steve Lydon
Addressed
Inquired about the Man property Chapter 61 status and advocated for workforce housing over current AMI definitions. Key concern
Preservation opportunities and realistic affordable/workforce housing.
Board response
Mr. Cohen provided update on the Man property agreement and Buzzards Bay Coalition involvement.
Status and process clearly explained.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of licenses as listed
All members present voted yes
Unanimous (4-0)
Approval of admin note number one
Admin note one approved; note two addressed separately via no action
Unanimous (4-0)
Decline to opt into liquor-license hour extension pilot
Board chose not to opt in; notice to be issued to license holders
No vote taken; consensus to decline
Conditional waiver of right of first refusal on Landers property already executed and recorded
Waiver runs with the land and binds future permitting to MOU criteria; outright purchase via town meeting was deemed infeasible.
Previously approved (no new vote taken)
Motion to adjourn the meeting
Voice vote: Mr. Canty yes, Mr. Quinto yes, Mr. Cohen yes, Chair yes.
Approved

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click a block to copy, or use Share to post it.

X / Twitter — by angle

Off-agenda discussion of Landers ROFR waiver
At the June 23 Select Board meeting, members spent extended time defending their prior conditional waiver of right of first refusal on the Landers property. The item was never listed on the public agenda. Residents had no... https://meetingwatch.org/ma/plymouth/select-board/2026-06-23/ #MeetingWatch #PlymouthMA
312/280 chars
Liquor license hours decision process
Plymouth Select Board declined the state's liquor sales pilot allowing 3 a.m. closings. They cited police concerns and lack of transit. Decision reached by consensus without a formal vote after restaurants had already been... https://meetingwatch.org/ma/plymouth/select-board/2026-06-23/ #MeetingWatch #PlymouthMA
313/280 chars
Budget forecast concerns raised in public comment
Resident Roz Jones pressed the board on June 23 about unrealistic 4% expense growth assumptions in the five-year forecast. Projected shortfalls range from $1.4M to $14.5M. Monthly finance reports start in August; revised... https://meetingwatch.org/ma/plymouth/select-board/2026-06-23/ #MeetingWatch #PlymouthMA
311/280 chars

X thread

1
June 23 Select Board meeting included a long debate on the Landers/Sheridan development. The conditional waiver of the town's right of first refusal had already been signed and recorded. The topic was not on the agenda. #MeetingWatch #PlymouthMA
245/280
2
Residents raised specific issues: sand removal volumes, traffic, Wampanoag artifacts, school capacity, vague MOU language using words like 'pursue' and 'consider,' and access via Hedges Pond Road. Board members stated the waiver was the only financially viable option within the 120-day window.
294/280
3
The board reiterated the town remains in safe harbor and the MOU requires 10% affordable units plus 40% open space. No reconsideration occurred. Earth Removal Bylaw Committee continues reviewing incidental sand removal rules. https://meetingwatch.org/ma/plymouth/select-board/2026-06-23/
249/280

Facebook — long form

At the June 23 Select Board meeting, the board devoted substantial time to the Landers/Sheridan development and its earlier conditional waiver of the right of first refusal. The waiver had already been executed and recorded at the Registry of Deeds. The item was not on the published agenda, so residents received no prior notice that this high-impact decision would be discussed or defended.

Multiple residents questioned the MOU's enforceability, limits on sand extraction, trail access, traffic effects on Cedarville precinct roads, and protection of potential Wampanoag artifacts. The board responded that the waiver was the only legally and financially feasible path within the required timeline and that the town is currently in safe harbor from unfriendly 40B projects. The recorded MOU will now guide future Planning Board and ZBA permitting.

The same meeting also covered the board's decision not to opt into the state's late-night liquor sales pilot and resident questions on the five-year budget forecast assumptions. Monthly financial reports are scheduled to begin in August. https://meetingwatch.org/ma/plymouth/select-board/2026-06-23/ #MeetingWatch #PlymouthMA

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Send notice to all liquor license holders confirming no extension of hours
Assigned: Licensing agent · Due: Next day (June 24, 2026)
Begin monthly financial reports and prepare revised five-year forecast
Assigned: Town Manager / Finance Director · Due: August (first report); September (forecast)
Schedule and hold presentation by staff on proper use of executive session
Assigned: Select Board · Due: Shortly after June 23
Discuss 10% affordable-housing goal strategy at next meeting
Assigned: Select Board · Due: June 30
Provide update on Sand and Gravel Committee RFP and consultant hiring timeline
Assigned: Mr. Cohen / Town Manager · Due: Next week’s town manager report
Schedule meeting with Pilgrim Hall representatives regarding final disbursement
Assigned: Chair / Mr. Cohen · Due: To be scheduled
Contact MassDOT regional director regarding State Road condition
Assigned: Staff · Due: As soon as possible
Lower flag at Town Hall for one week in honor of Jean Lane
Assigned: Board · Due: Immediate

Accountability ⁠flags

Documented procedural gaps. Each item links to its source.

Agenda items not discussed

Topics discussed — not on agenda

Transcript vs. official minutes

Support coverage

Creating this report cost ⁠real money.

MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Plymouth.

Report composed by grok-4.3, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-07-04.