The water ban regulation, outlined in Article 14, garnered attention as the Board members examined the differences between the new proposal and past water restrictions. Concerns were raised about the lack of a clear definition of restrictions in previous regulations, prompting discussion on the necessity of standardized language recommended by the state to eliminate confusion. Notably, the debate centered on whether the language should allow drip irrigation for private homeowners during water bans, which was not specified in the proposed article. This omission led to apprehensions about the potential impact on residents’ ability to maintain their gardens and properties. In light of the upcoming summer, a member emphasized the urgency of adopting a regulation to avoid plant loss. Ultimately, a proposal was made to amend the article to include language supporting private drip irrigation use, with the Board agreeing to finalize the wording by the next meeting.

Additionally, the Board discussed the inclusion of language exempting properties with wells from the proposed regulation. This topic was complicated by the removal of a similar regulation by the Board of Health, causing some confusion. To address this, it was clarified that the exemption would be presented as a main motion on the floor rather than an amendment to an article, necessitating the preparation of handouts with the new language by April 7.

The meeting also addressed Articles 19 and 20, which involved citizen petitions. Article 19, a citizen’s petition, was introduced by a member claiming ownership and readiness to speak on the matter. However, it was noted that the town meeting lacked the authority to repeal a Board of Health regulation, a limitation identified previously. Article 20, another citizen’s petition, required clarification due to its complexity. Concerns were raised about potential rejection by the attorney general because of existing comprehensive state schemes.

Further discussions involved Articles 21 and 22. Article 21, concerning construction noise, was expected to be withdrawn by the petitioner due to challenges related to state law penalties. Article 22 dealt with moving funds to adjust the tax rate, a customary action unless there was a change in appropriation. The Board emphasized the importance of communicating any changes in recommendation for this article, with a formal vote taken to memorialize the recommendations to approve all articles except for Article 21.

The Board’s deliberations also covered routine financial matters, including the capital budget and funding for various town projects. Article Three, which addressed funding for the North Shore Agricultural Technical School, and Article Four, involving a vote on capital items the town would raise, were discussed. A member questioned the funding for the shellfish study, advocating for the study to be funded from the waterway fund rather than the harbor funds, with the consensus leaning toward this change.

Article 15, related to the community preservation fund, included discussion on updates to a mobility map for Singing Beach, extending it further out to the water. Article 16 addressed Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB), with confirmation of a two and a half year timeline until the final payment, considered manageable. Article 17, pertaining to the Hero Act for veterans, was also covered. This act allows certain veterans to reduce increases in their property taxes, with provisions related to disabled veterans and other specific conditions outlined.