Nicholas Gregoretti v. Chelsea City Solicitor (SPR 20252884)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 8, 2025 SPR25/2884 Cheryl Watson Fisher, Esq. City Solicitor City of Chelsea 500 Broadway, Room 307 Chelsea, MA 02150 Dear Attorney Fisher: I have received the petition of Nicholas Gregoretti appealing the response of the City of Chelsea (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 11, 2025, Mr. Gregoretti requested: [1] The written decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals for Case #2025-07 (Boston Provisions, 100 Justin Drive), and any filings, notations, or certifications relating to that decision. [2] Any notice of appeal, complaint, petition, motion, or related filing referencing Case #2025-07 or ZA-24-04, whether by Boston Provisions LLC, any affiliated/alternate name (Boston Processing, Wulf’s Fish, Savenor’s, Sea2050 etc.), or any other party. [3] Any correspondence, certificate, acknowledgment, transmittal, email, cover letter, or filing receipt associated with the items in #1 or #2. [4] Any record originating from or transmitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board, City Council, City Manager’s Office, City Legal Department/City Solicitor, or Inspectional Services Department concerning Case #2025-07 or ZA-24-04. The City responded on September 24, 2025, assigning the request submission number 2002. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Gregoretti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2884, was opened as a result. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Cheryl Watson Fisher, Esq. SPR25/2884 Page 2 October 8, 2025 The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s September 24th Response Following correspondence between Mr. Gregoretti and the City, on September 24, 2025, the City provided “a non-certified copy of ZBA decisions for Case 2025-07 stamped by the City Clerk’s Office.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Gregoretti stated that the City’s response is deficient for the following reasons: [1] Timely filings (Sept. 2–9) were excluded from the case record despite being submitted before the hearing closed. [2] The ZBA’s decision selectively includes post-hearing and draft materials while excluding abutter filings. [3] A relevance filter was applied that is not authorized by statute. [4] My participation as an abutter and party in interest is not reflected in the record, impairing transparency. [5] Because one of my complaints concerned the City Solicitor, excluding that filing has the effect of shielding her role from the official case record. In addition, Mr. Gregoretti stated: When I asked for confirmation these records were included in the case file, [the City] responded that only matters relevant to the ZBA process would be

Cheryl Watson Fisher, Esq. SPR25/2884 Page 3 October 8, 2025 included… [The City] also indicated that my filings are considered legal documents and therefore not necessarily subject to the public records law… [T]his position conflicts with M.G.L. c.40A §15… [T]he City’s response to PRR #2002 constitutes a denial or constructive denial of access to the complete case record. In a telephone conversation between the City and this office on October 2, 2025, the City confirmed that the referenced case record was closed and does not include complaints filed after its closure. In addition, the City stated that it was continuing to locate and produce additional records, such as responsive emails and correspondence. Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Gregoretti’s request was submitted on September 11, 2025, and the City has not completed providing the responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding the remaining records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in a complete fashion in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the remaining responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must continue to provide remaining responsive records on a rolling basis. Issues Outside the Authority of this Office In addition to issues regarding the Public Records Law, Mr. Gregoretti’s appeal petition alleges violations of G. L. c. 40A § 15 and the exclusion of certain documents from the referenced case record. Please be advised that the Office of the Supervisor of Records is statutorily empowered with the authority to determine the public record status of government records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10. Further, in compliance with the Public Records Law, the

Cheryl Watson Fisher, Esq. SPR25/2884 Page 4 October 8, 2025 Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been alleged. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given that G. L. c. 40A § 15 governs “appeals to permit granting authority; notice; time; boards of appeal hearings; [and] procedure,” and does not fall within the authority of this office, I am unable to address these issues in this determination. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Gregoretti with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Gregoretti may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas Gregoretti