If Tisbury voters approve the sale of beer and wine in the town’s restaurants at the upcoming town ballot, how many licensed premises will they be signing up for?

The wording of the ballot question on the annual town meeting warrant, finalized this week, suggests the answer may be 19, or arguably 38, and possibly more.

The right answer may turn out to be none of the above, but you could forgive town residents for thinking, based on a literal interpretation of the ballot question, that Tisbury’s selectmen are preparing to jump in the deep end, alcohol-sales-wise. Nineteen year-round licenses would mean Tisbury would have more year-round licenses than either Oak Bluffs (14) or Edgartown (16). And potentially more seasonal licenses too.

The question says: “Shall the board of selectmen of the town of Tisbury be authorized to grant 19 licenses for the sale of wines and malt beverages to be drunk on the premises to restaurants, including restaurants within inns and hotels, with seating capacities of not less than 30 persons, to be consumed with meals only, and only to patrons who are seated at dining tables, and to grant seasonal licenses for the same as the selectmen may determine.”

The question does not say “up to” 19 licenses. It says 19 licenses.

And the words “to grant seasonal licenses for the same” are ambiguous. Already some people around town are interpreting that to mean the same number, that is another 19.

In fact, as the chairman of the board of selectmen, Tristan Israel explained to a questioner during Tuesday night’s two-and-a-half-hour marathon public review of the proposed regulations which would govern beer and wine, it means an unspecified number.

He confirmed it, right at the top of the meeting, when a questioner, Geraldine Brooks, sought clarification of the ballot question’s meaning.

“So,” she asked, “we could have an infinite amount?”

Not unless there were an infinite number of establishments, Mr. Israel responded.

And that was about as close as he or either of the other selectmen came to stating their intention for distributing beer and wine licenses, should there be a “yes” majority on polling day, April 27.

They remained imprecise on numbers.

Late last year, when they petitioned the state, the selectmen presented the legislature with a blank check. They sought to be able to issue licenses without quota. But the counsel at the state Senate insisted there should be a number on it and suggested, on the basis of Tisbury’s year-round population, that number should be five.

When the board’s hand was forced, the selectmen nominated 19, a number they insisted, and continued to insist at Tuesday’s meeting, that was not an indication of their intentions, but arrived at simply by counting up the number of establishments in town which met the minimum for seating capacity.

At Tuesday’s meeting, one selectman, Geoghan Coogan, said current indications were that only seven or eight places would seek year-round licenses.

That being the case, suggested several people in the audience, why could the selectmen not simply commit to a number? Two of them suggested five year-round, and maybe another five seasonal.

Tony Horwitz asked if there could not at least be a ratio set between year-round and seasonal licenses. He said that as things now stood, voters would be less likely to approve the beer and wine question.

“This notion of unlimited licenses will scare people. It scares me,” he said.

Selectman Jeff Kristal, the strongest advocate for beer and wine on the board, suggested there was little point to the selectmen committing to any firm number, for it would not be binding; any future board, or even the current board could simply change it.

And Mr. Coogan, the attorney on the board, said the town would have to seek advice from counsel on whether and how the selectmen could impose a limit on the number of licenses.

Nonetheless, Mr. Israel floated the prospect of setting a lower number and then deciding by lottery who did and did not get a license.

That brought a sharp rejoinder from one of the restaurateurs in the audience, Stephen Bowen, owner of the Blue Canoe and Waterside, who said the selectmen would have to prepare to see establishments go out of business as a result.

Speaking to the Gazette later, Mr. Bowen said that where two nearby restaurants were competing for patronage, the licensed one would have a major competitive advantage.

He said that while it was possible some places which catered for the breakfast or lunch crowd might be able to survive without a license, competition would dictate that fine dining restaurants seek a license. That meant at least half the year-round places in town.

The meeting was intended to be a work session on the regulations which might apply if beer and wine sales were approved, but it sidetracked several times.

Pam Benjamin, a strong opponent of any alcohol sales, questioned the balance of the selectmen on the matter, noting they all appeared to be in favor of the change, and claiming that Mr. Kristal, as the owner of an inn, had a conflict of interest.

He said that he would not qualify for a beer and wine license, because his dining room did not seat 30.

The question of enforcement of regulations also spread to broader issues. Mrs. Benjamin’s husband, Nat, claimed the police were not adequately enforcing the current drinking rules, “so why would we believe these would be?”

Mr. Benjamin suggested a means of ensuring compliance: the installation of cameras in restaurants, with the tapes later reviewed by an independent authority.

Then there was the matter of what a proliferation of seasonal restaurants in town might mean for shop rents. Could other businesses be forced out?

At each digression, the conversation was steered back to the regulations at hand, although in the case of the shop rents question, it was Howard Miller, attorney and former chairman of the state Alcohol Beverages Control Commission, who brought it back, noting that it was “beyond the jurisdiction of this board to get into rent control.”

The conversation went down other rabbit holes too; one of the longest discussions of the night concerned whether licensed restaurants should be allowed to have televisions, and if so, how many and how big. It was ended, mercifully, by Mr. Coogan’s suggestion that there be no blanket regulation of TVs.