Provincetown Association of Concerned Citizens

Sal's Place Saga

Mission Statement
Shout Out!
LAffaire Sals Place
Candace Nagle Public Records
Sal's Place Saga
Michael Shay Devlopment
Connecting the Dots
Police Marcum Rebuttal
Declaration of Independence
Breaking News!
Adventures of Harbor Home III
Literary Corner
That's Entertainment
Listen and Learn (Audio Commentary)
Eyes On The World (Video Commentary)
For The Record (Downloadable Files)
Frequently Asked Questions
Contact Us
100 E-Mails

Sal's Place Saga

Click Here to Witness the On Going Saga at Sal's Place Aug 30 2016. The Town Made an Attempt to Forcibly Trespass On to Private Property. The illegal Attempt was Successfully Opposed by the Owner and Her Daughter, With Child In Hand. Who Authorized This? Where is the Town Manager? This matter will only be settled in State and Federal Courts.....The Town Will Lose

Enter content here


Below is an E-mail communication which is one of  approximately 909 received under the Freedom of  Information Act Concerning Sal's Place:

"Available for pick up in my office is a DVD containing the emails responsive to your public records request dated June 27, 2016.  As you will recall, approximately 1800 emails were identified as potentially responsive to your request.  You are being provided with approximately 909 emails. Approximately 866 were determined to be non-responsive to the request.  Such items included mass mailing emails, emails that included “Sal’s Place” in internal listings of businesses and/or licensed premises in town, numerous (approximately 165) internal emails that concerned routine preparation and posting of board meeting agendas and minutes, and communications not related to the items you identified in your public records request.   An additional 80 emails are being withheld because they are non-responsive and/or also protected under the attorney-client privilege (see Suffolk Construction v. DCAM, 449 Mass. 444, 449-450 (2007)).  Those emails involve exchanges between Town Counsel and town employees, between 11/26/2014 and 6/27/16, and it is the Town’s position that those communications that were made in confidence, for purposes of soliciting legal advice, and that the Town has not waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to such communications..............................................................................................

Thank you.

Doug Johnstone

Town Clerk"





From: Alfred Famiglietti (Conservation Commission)
To: Gloria McPherson
Cc: Dennis Minsky CC-Chr

Subject: Re: 99 Commercial St SE 058-0517 4/16/13-emerency meeting today
Date: Friday, June 24, 2016 3:40:57 PM

In addition to below that I sent you earlier, I researched further in the Town Data
base and the Mass DEP. Only one of the Pier Condo owners, DAVID BERADUCCI,
filed the NOI,and was mentioned in the Order of Conditions, no-one else, not even
the whole condo name or even on behalf of Laura Papetes, the original owner at the
time who held 78.2% of the condo that was mentioned. The WPA - Order of
Conditions w/ DEP # 058-0517 states that the piers can be reconstructed “by barge
only”, not by beach access. And was approved on 03/05/2013,by the CC and voted
that the piers be replaced only by barge and specifically, by only ONE barge at a
time, at high tide only to perform the work. All debris hauled to beach for disposal.
Any shellfish beds disrupted, need to be replaced. This is specifically stated and
refers the reader of the ORDER OF CONDITIONS to refer to The Minutes of
the Conservation Commission dated 03/05/2013 for further details, which I
basically wrote above. They re in the Town Archives, but I can;t find the original
NOI at all, anywhere, in MassDEP or Ptown archives on line, so I can’t be 100%
So, this is curious!!!!

Also, nowhere in the Condo Docs / Master Deed in the Mass records online - book
26702, page 197- “Nathanial Hopkins Condominiums at Union Wharf does
it state that any one of the individual condo owners can act on their own unless
there is a 75% or greater approval.
This would have meant (I’m guessing here) that
Laura Papetses, (the original owner and condo converter-possessing 78.2%) must
have allowed the dock restoration, blah, blah and all that happened……????? or this
guy, David Beraducci, an individual condo owner on the deck, who’s only name is on
the NOI and WPA and referenced in the CC Minutes, is referenced, not any of the
other owners nor even the Condo name itself. Therefore he could have acted alone,
going outside Condo Doc rules……..???? Did anyone research or even think of that.
That’s why I said all of them need to show up.

Also at The November 17, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals on Ptown, FY-16-07, it
was approved for him to go ahead with the work. and it was also mentioned in the
ZBA in October 2015 also.
So there you have it. We should get a copy of the NOI.

Also, who really commissioned the original work and agreed for who would pay, the
Condo $ or individual condo owners for their part of the project only? Maybe it’s not
just the purview of the woman who appeared today who can be sited in this,
especially where the greatest percent holder was not on the original documents. The
question is can any owner start the ball rolling, especially where owner transfer is
involved, and Laura Papetses, the original greatest percent holder wasn’t mentioned
on any document discussed or submitted, nor was the Condo itself represented.

Maybe this is over kill, but are we and sorry, (LOL) the ZBA, at fault for not investing
who David Beraducci is / was and what power he acted on?

Just some grist for the mill….!
Let me know your thoughts.
If this is true then a new NOI w/ the new lady’s name needs to be submitted
Don’t forget if you have time to send me the O of C and the NOI
Thanks! Alfred 


On Jun 24, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Alfred Famiglietti
<> wrote:

Hi Gloria,
I was wondering about the process for a new NOI. I assume that there
will be some disagreement between the individual condominium owners
concerning the new application. Can an individual owner in an association
submit their own application? If not, or if an owner tries to submit an
application, are we responsible for verifying what is allowed in the
association rules. 78% does not necessarily mean that she has full
authority to act for the association. For example, in our condo association
some changes require an 85% vote.

Look For More Forthcoming Revealing Documentation

Enter content here

Enter content here

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here