August 11, 2020

“MOTION: To not support the alcohol application at this time. Motion by: Tracy Post Seconded by: No audible second on the video Discussion: Selectman Post said that they were sold more for family entertainment, and she expressed some of the same concerns as some of the commenters. She said she knew Mr. Epstein had invested a lot of money, and hoped that by extending the season, it would make it financially feasible. Perhaps in the following year, in a more permanent situation, they could look at it again in its totality. She noted the neighbors' complaints, and did not think it would be a good idea to add alcohol at this time. Selectman Tolley agreed, and said originally he did not support the sale of alcohol, and he stood by his original position. Selectman Forest said that he was looking for consistency in terms of allowing alcohol on the site. In the past, it had been allowed for some licensed events. He felt an outright ban was excessive. He said that, if the Board wanted the site to be used as an entertainment venue in the future, he believed that the Board needed to be somewhat flexible. He asked that the Health Agent confirm whether the activity fell within the boundaries of what would be allowed. Selectman Stone said that he saw a number of issues. He said that initially the proposal did not include the alcohol request. If it had been included, perhaps they would have voted differently, choosing to go with the proposal from the local Sandwich applicant. He also noted that they expected more movies than live entertainment, but that the rest of the proposed schedule included live entertainment. In regards to alcohol, past events were usually only for one or two days, well defined and well lit. There had been more access to the customers and interaction in the past, but the Coronavirus had changed that. Selectman Stone said that the dynamics of the Coronavirus made it an unworkable situation in his mind. Mr. Epstein countered that all the scenarios were designed to afford observing and monitoring. He also noted that they had shown 23 family movies in under three weeks, and had three bands. He said they followed through in what they promised. Only showing movies was not a sustainable business model, so they were trying to create a diverse range of entertainment options in order to bring more people into the site. Mr. Epstein said the bands drew many people from the Boston area, filling up Yarmouth restaurants and motels. Selectmen Post noted that it was done without alcohol. Mr. Epstein countered that they did not buy alcohol on site. He said that he knew his audience, and would rather provide beverages on the site, than having the customers sneak it in. He felt he could control and regulate it better, and ensure safety. Selectman Forest again asked for input from the Health Agent. Health Director Bruce Murphy stated that, in his opinion, he felt the proposal would be in compliance. Mr. Murphy said, however, should the State come down and overrule his opinion, then it would fall on Mr. Epstein. Mr. Murphy said the Board of Health did not make a determination on the three plans, but felt the most compliant option to prevent a gathering would be the service delivery system. Selectmen Stone then stated that a motion was before them to not allow alcohol during the period during which the license was to be extended, and then called the vote. Vote: 3 ayes; 1 nay (Mark Forest). The motion passed..” (Motion: Post)

Read it in the official minutes, page 7 (PDF)