Nicholas Gregoretti v. Chelsea, City of (SPR 20253302)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 20, 2025 SPR25/3302 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. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2884 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 8, 2025). In my October 8th determination, I ordered the City to produce the remaining responsive records on a rolling basis. Additionally, I found that Mr. 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. SPR25/3302 Page 2 November 20, 2025 Gregoretti’s claims that the City violated G. L. c. 40A § 15 and excluded certain documents from the referenced case record do not fall within the authority of this office. The City responded on October 8, 2025, October 14, 2025, and October 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Gregoretti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3302, was opened as a result. 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 October 8th, October 14th, and October 15th Responses In its first October 8, 2025 response, the City provided Mr. Gregoretti with a responsive “appeal” record. In a second October 8, 2025 response, a City official stated: It dawned on me that we did not send you the public hearing notice that was in the Chelsea Record for the Zoning Amendment ZA-24-04. The Council Clerk nor the City Clerk have files as to the adoption of the Orders but if you go online and review the Council packets you will see the cover letter to Council, and the minutes of the meetings. You will see initial version of the amendment, then Planning Board recommendation and also minutes as to public hearing all online. I believe besides your own emails that is the full file for the Zoning Amendment.… As for the appeal of the ZBA decision… I have asked the Land Use Dept. to provide what they have to you except if my office provided any attorney-client legal advice…

Cheryl Watson Fisher, Esq. SPR25/3302 Page 3 November 20, 2025 On October 10, 2025, Ms. Gregoretti asked the City if it considered the response to be complete. In reply on October 14, 2025, a City official stated, “I owe you the ZBA file once it is copied.” In a second October 14, 2025 response, the City stated: I rec’d a USB drive with the applications and will have to send you in separate emails the documents. Please have patience with all the emails they may be large or I can copy onto another USB and you may come to obtain the files – the drives costs $10.00 each. In its October 15, 2025 response, the City provided a link to the “final records” responsive to the request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Gregoretti argued, “multiple materials… remain missing from the production.” In addition, Mr. Gregoretti stated: My submitted complaints, timeline, memoranda, and evidence logs – all of which were filed before the ZBA voted and well before its written decision was filed with the City Clerk… should appear in the administrative record under M.G.L. c. 40A §15... None of these explanations are consistent with the Public Records Law or the governing zoning statute. In a telephone conversation between the City and this office on November 20, 2025, the City confirmed that it has provided all records responsive to the request and stated that Mr. Gregoretti already possesses his own emails and correspondence. The City also reiterated that the referenced case record was closed and does not include complaints filed after its closure. No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Issue Previously Addressed It appears that Mr. Gregoretti’s appeal also raises issues that were previously addressed in a prior determination, including alleged violations of G. L. c. 40A § 15 and the exclusion of

Cheryl Watson Fisher, Esq. SPR25/3302 Page 4 November 20, 2025 certain documents from the referenced case record. See SPR25/2884 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 8, 2025). As noted in my October 8th determination, 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 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 remain unable to address these issues in this determination. Conclusion Given that the City has confirmed that it does not possess any additional records responsive to Mr. Gregoretti’s request, and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Gregoretti is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas Gregoretti Jessica C. Morales