Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Liquor License topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Selectboard deadlocks on beer-and-wine trial at Thursday-night concerts
Summary
After a prolonged debate about logistics, staffing and community fit, Fair Haven’s Selectboard failed to pass a motion to allow a two-event trial permitting beer-and-wine sales at Thursday-night concerts; the vendor proposed was Fairly Buzzed LLC.
Fair Haven’s Selectboard considered a request to allow beer-and-wine sales at Thursday-night concerts but a motion to approve a two-event trial failed to win the three votes required.
The proposal, brought forward by a local vendor identified as Fairly Buzzed LLC, sought permits for four Thursday concerts; the board heard detailed questions about the footprint, fencing, policing and how the town would measure success. Staff member, who introduced the item to the board, said the vendor would operate outside the main fenced concert area in a designated cordoned space "behind the bus stop" and that the permit would be limited to beer and wine.
Supporters said the pilot could attract new, younger attendees and help downtown businesses. "Fair Haven of 2025 is not Fair Haven of 1960," the staff member argued, urging the board to consider trying controlled changes to draw visitors. Opponents raised concerns about crowd behavior, parking and preserving the family-friendly character of park concerts. One committee member warned the town risked alienating longtime attendees if alcohol was introduced into the concert environment.
Board members also debated measurable goals and revenue arrangements: the vendor would pay the standard $10 event fee, and members asked whether a higher fee or a percentage of sales would be appropriate. The motion to permit a conditional two-event trial was moved and seconded; during the voice vote several members said "aye," others abstained or opposed, and the chair confirmed the measure "didn't carry" for lack of the three affirmative votes required.
With the motion defeated, the board left the existing rules unchanged and asked that any future proposal provide clearer parameters on location, policing, containment (e.g., fencing), how success would be measured and whether local businesses could participate in or benefit from alcohol-related sales. The conversation drew extensive public and member comment but produced no permit change at this meeting.
