Printer Friendly Layout
News/Events - Meeting Minutes
Advisory Committee, February 2, 2006
FEBRUARY 2, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Wendy Ballinger, Chairman; Kathy Donahue; Constantine Constantinides; David Grace; Joe Armstrong; Lisa Fenton; Paul Lemieux; Tony Vegnani; Kevin Sparks.
1.CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Wendy Ballinger called the meeting to order at 6:40 P.M. in the Scituate Town Library.
2. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA. On a MOTION by Ms. Donahue, SECONDED by Mr. Constantinides, the agenda was accepted as written by unanimous vote (9-0).
Ms. Ballinger suggested taking the agenda out of order as the Selectmen were still in session.
7. REVIEW OF ARTICLES FOR SPECIAL TOWN MEETING
Article 1: Bills of Prior Years. Ms. Ballinger said that this is a housekeeping item. As the amount is not available at this time, the final vote will be taken just before Town Meeting. On a MOTION by Mr. Vegnani, SECONDED by Mr. Armstrong, this article was approved by unanimous vote (9-0). Mr. Agnew arrived at the meeting with the figure of $639.43.
Article 2: Transfers. From Free Cash to Group Insurance $35,000; From Free Cash to Medicare $25,000; From Free Cash to Treasurer Overtime $2500; From Free Cash to Paratransit $6000; From Waterways Retained Earnings to Retainer $25,000 Regarding the retainer, Mr. Murray of the Waterways Commission explained that this retainer would be for a consultant to assist in fundraising and the preparation of grant proposals for waterways-related projects. Mr. Murray answered questions regarding fees for the consultant, Fultz and Associates, and said that a three-page proposal from Mr. Fultz had been received and thoroughly gone over. Mr. Murray explained that most of Mr. Fultz’s fees would come out of the grants that he would be obtaining for the Town. Mr. Agnew explained that the $25,000 figure is based on a proposal; Mr. Armstrong was concerned that three bids should be received from consultants, and asked for information regarding the selection process. On a MOTION by Mr. Grace, SECONDED by Ms. Donahue, this article was unanimously approved (9-0).
Upon the arrival of Mr. Agnew at the meeting, the meeting resumed with agenda item 4.
4. REVIEW OF BUDGETS FOR ANNUAL TOWN MEETING.
Article 7: Golf Course Enterprise Fund. Mr. Vegnani said that for FY06 revenues are currently 5 percent below last year’s actuals of $1,210,435 and far below projected revenue of $1,370,000. FY07 is budgeted at $1,319,000 which is about a 6.5 percent increase from FY05 actuals. He said that a committee was formed to explore ways to draw more people to the course. There was a discussion about poor weather affecting revenues. Mr. Vegnani said that weather has been poor for the past three springs, but that revenues were higher when the golf course was first open. Mr. Agnew said that they do not want to increase greens fees and risk driving people away. He said the number of golfers has flattened while there are now more golf courses nearby. Mr. Agnew said that the budget amount is $1,318,305. On a MOTION by Mr. Armstrong, SECONDED by Mr. Lemieux, the amount of $1,318,305 received unanimous support on a vote of 9-0.
5. VOTE ON BUDGET ARTICLES FOR TOWN MEETING
Article 4: Capital Plan. Three changes have been made since this article was first heard by the Advisory Committee. The amount for the Cole Parkway railing has been moved below seawall repairs and into the Levy. Under Water Dept Enterprise Fund, $50,000 for the water main has been taken out of the capital plan budget as it had to be replaced as an emergency. The $500,000 for the study for the sewer has been removed from this budget and will be brought up again at a later date; Mr. Agnew said that the scope of services will be massaged a bit and that it will go out to bid and the actual amount will be requested at the Special Town Meeting. Mr. Agnew said that two consulting firms have given a figure of $500,000 but because no one is comfortable with this figure he has decided to put it out to bid. Ms. Ballinger said that another town she contacted that was doing something similar had phased in their sewer study in three years; their RFP shows the cost of each piece, and this made it easier to control costs. On a MOTION by Mr. Vegnani, SECONDED by Mr. Constantinides, the capital plan as proposed by the Board of Selectmen was unanimously approved by the Advisory Committee on a vote of 9-0.
Article 5: FY07 Operating Budget. Changes: The Selectmen voted to cut $100,000 out of the litigation budget, resulting in a townside budget of $12,392,197 (including collective bargaining). The school budget is $24,074,217. The shared budgets figure is $8,210,233. Ms. Ballinger said that Group Insurance may go down $70-80,000, but this will not be known until after Town Meeting; any savings will be put in Excess and Deficiency. Mr. Grace made a MOTION to support Article 5 in total as written at the above figures; the motion was SECONDED by Mr. Lemieux, and the vote was unanimously in favor 9-0.
Article 9. Transfer Station Enterprise Fund. Mr. Agnew said that proposals from private industry were looked at but no proposals have been received. He said that the $1,294,036 budget has been reduced to $1,254,036 by reducing equipment rentals by $50,000 (reduction in recycling costs), and a $10,000 increase in salaries. Mr. Agnew said that the Selectmen are aware that a number of things need to be done to bring revenue into line with expenses, but no decisions have been made. Mr. Agnew said he expects they would make a decision by May 1. Mr. Pollard said that bulky waste and Take It or Leave It will be looked at and fees will be adjusted accordingly; he did not think that doubling the cost of pay as you throw bags at this time is the way to go. Mr. Armstrong asked about staff changes; Mr. Agnew said that they will not lose pay. Mr. Lemieux asked about recycling. Mr. Agnew said that plastic and glass will be separated. Mr. Lemieux asked if stickers to use the recycling center could be sold to out of towners. Mr. Agnew said that they could then bring their trash in as well, and also the permit would have to be changed. Mr. Breen said that the operation will still be overseen by staff. Mr. Vegnani made a MOTION to support the budget figure of $1,254,036, the motion was SECONDED by Mr. Lemieux and the article was supported by a vote of 8-1 (the opposing vote was cast by Ms. Donahue).
6. REVIEW OF ARTICLES FOR ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
Article 31: Revolving Fund School Bus Transportation. The maximum amount is $300,000. Mr. Mason said that these funds would be used for transportation needs. Mr. Armstrong asked about waivers for low income families; Mr. Mason said that a number of waivers have been made, based on documentation. Ms. Fenton asked about how redistricting will affect revenue from the transportation fee. On a MOTION by Mr. Grace, SECONDED by Mr. Armstrong, this article was supported unanimously on a vote of 9-0.
5. VOTE ON BUDGET ARTICLES FOR TOWN MEETING.
Article 6: Waterways Enterprise Fund. Mr. Murray, Mr. Patterson, and Mr. Regan represented this article. Mr. Patterson said that the capital request is reduced by $8,000 to a total of $914,222; the amount for the outboard engine is reduced by $3,000, and the amount for the replacement vehicle has been reduced by $5,000 from $25,000 to $20,000. Ms. Donahue said that fee changes should remain stable, and she commended the Harbormaster’s work with CZM to get the most for the Harbor. On a MOTION by Ms. Donahue, SECONDED by Mr. Sparks, the budget amount of $914,222 was unanimously approved (9-0).
Article 8: Wastewater Enterprise Fund. Mr. Agnew said that no changes have been brought on this budget this evening, the bond was floated earlier than anticipated. Ms. Ballinger said that this will be voted as a tentative budget. Nothing was added to the utilities budget. The bottom line remains as printed in the book as of this evening. On a MOTION by Mr. Grace, SECONDED by Mr. Lemieux, the budget amount of $2,438,093 was unanimously approved (9-0).
Article 10: Water Enterprise Fund. Mr. Agnew said that Scituate is negotiating the price increase with Marshfield. He said the figure for charges and assessments is likely to go up, but that he will not know for a week. Ms. Ballinger said that it can be asterisked in the book so voters know that it is being negotiatied. The budget amount as of now is $2,130,732. On a MOTION by Mr. Grace, SECONDED by Ms. Donahue, this article and the budget amount as stated was supported unanimously on a vote of 9-0.
6. REVIEW OF ARTICLES FOR ANNUAL TOWN MEETING.
Article 25: ZBL re Water Resource Protection District Map.
Article 26: Definition of a Tributary. Ms. Ballinger said that the Selectmen voted against this; the Planning Board opposed it on a vote of 4-1; the Conservation Commission and Board of Health voted to IP it. Ms. Morrissey, Chairman of the Water Study Committee, Gene Babin, a member of Water Study committee and head of the Water Department; Lance Van Lenten, a member of the Water Study committee, presented. Ms. Morrissey said that the committee was appointed by the Selectmen in June 2004; and there has not been a lot of change in bylaws since 1987. In 2004 the State recommended some changes be made, and the recommendations were reviewed by various Town boards and committees. The recommendations were voted unanimously at Town Meeting in 2004, to be in better compliance with DEP regulations. She said a definition of tributary must be in the bylaws and a map must also be included. She said the tributary definition being proposed in Article 26 is exactly the same as the state’s definition. The map being proposed is a DEP map from 2004. A water withdrawal increase is being worked on in conjunction with the permit renewal for 2009. She said that 120 units are left under the current permit. Mr. Babin said that it is better to enter permit negotiations prior to exceeding the terms of the existing permit; it also helps to have regulations in effect prior to new permitting, and may result in a greater withdrawal level. Ms. Morrissey said that these articles do not offer changes but redefinitions. Mr. Constantinides asked about the Planning Board vote. Ms. Morrissey said the Planning Board did not support the map proposal, on a vote of 4-1. Ms. Ballinger said that while concerns were expressed by Conservation and the health officer, no votes have been taken. Ms. Morrissey said that they have received written support from the Chairman of the Conservation Commission, Michael Clark. Mr. Armstrong said that his understanding was that the Town Planner, Laura Harbottle, felt that the map might be seen as a taking action, and that the feeling was that further study was needed. Ms. Ballinger said that the Planning Board felt there might be several errors on the map, and that it did not need to be approved at this time. Ms. Morrissey said that the discussion has been on one aspect of the map, which has nothing to do with the two articles in question; and that the map is a DEP map and the Selectmen have received written confirmation that it is correct. Ms. Donahue said she sees the map as an excellent tool for the Town. Mr. Vegnani said he would like to hear from the Planning Board before voting. Mr. Ohrenberger, 29 Arborway Drive, said that the issue is property rights versus water rights; one of the concerns is that under due process a person should be able to know how the bylaw change affects them; therefore the accuracy of a map is of importance. He said there are 16 streets in the water resource protection district that would be affected by the stipulation that no excavation take place. He said that underground streams could be interpreted as streams; therefore if it was determined at some stage that you have an underground stream on your property, you could not repair your septic system, or make any additions to your property, if you are within 150 feet of the protection district; and people’s livelihoods and the value of their property will be affected by this. Ms. Donahue asked about DEP’s interpretation of this situation; Mr. Ohrenberger said his clients had spoken to representatives. Mr. Limbacher spoke for the Planning Board, he confirmed the 1-4 vote on the map; he said regarding the tributary there was a question if the DEP definition needed to be put in a bylaw. Regarding the map he said this is a very complex issue, and said the Water Study committee had done a tremendous job. He said the Planning Board had concerns about whether it is a zoning bylaw or a general bylaw, as it will affect enforcement. Also he said that once in place it takes a two-thirds vote at Town Meeting to change a bylaw, as well as action by the DEP, and it is known that the map is not entirely accurate. He said the no disturbance zone should be delineated on a map to make it easy for voters to see if they will be affected. He also said that it appeared to be selective (150- to 200-foot buffer), and that it should be uniformly applied within the protection district. He also said that we should not feel driven to approve something prematurely. He said that the Planning Board’s concern is that this is done right and that property rights are not impacted. Mr. Duggan as the Zoning Enforcement Officer said that it took three years to get the FEMA map right. He said that Conservation and the Board of Health were not consulted regarding the current map until the eleventh hour, and they are not onboard with it. Ms. Woods, director of NSRWA, spoke in favor of articles 25 and 26. She said it makes sense to protect the water supply now before it is contaminated. Mr. Rushit (?), Bullrush Farm Road, said that the FEMA map took five years to make in concert with several other state agencies. He said the DEP engineer was taken to all the locations. Regarding the public taking he said that there is an issue with whether the bog should be considered a tributary, and this does not affect these articles. He said that an underground stream is not to be confused with a tributary, the language is clear. He said that we have the most advanced map of any town in the state, it has the most specificity. He also said that regarding the no disturb zone it is already on the books, and that enforcement should be done. Mr. Duggan said that there is no emergency to get this approved and that they would like an opportunity to look at the language, Town Counsel should be consulted, and overlap between responsibilities of the boards and committees involved needs to be dealt with. Mr. van Lenten said that the process has been in the open and the chairmen of the zoning board and conservation were involved. Mr. Van Warp (?) said that the state agencies have been supportive through the five-year process. Ms. Fenton asked Mr. Babin about the need to increase the withdrawal. She asked about a gallon figure for fire flow; Mr. Babin said that 600-800 gallons per minute, or a million gallons per day, is considered inadequate by today’s standards, that it is actually fifty percent higher. Mr. Armstrong asked if the new bylaws change a person’s right to fix their septic; Ms. Morrissey said that other bylaws dealing with these issues have not changed, therefore their rights have not changed. Mr. Ohrenberger said that the geographic area that is changing is at question. Mr. Grace said he does not think Ms. Morrissey’s response answered the question; Mr. Duggan said that under the non-disturbance prohibition zone of 200 feet septics are exempt, but under the 150 foot zone it is not clear if they are exempt. Mr. Duggan said that this matter has brought to light that there are flaws in the bylaws; he asked why all the tributaries are not being protected. Mr. Babin said that the Old Oaken Bucket reservoir is given greater protection for a good reason. He explained the science as to why the farther away from the intake a water source is, the less protection is needed. Mr. Constantinides asked if state policy change in the future would mean we would also have to make the changes; Ms. Morrissey said that language saying “as amended” will be included so that any changes made at the state level will be automatically adopted by the Town. She said that DEP requires that a map must be provided. Mr. Vegnani said changing the map and not the bylaw is at issue here; Ms. Morrissey said that all the areas in the map are protected by DEP, whether the Town votes to accept it or not. She said that adopting the official DEP map and having a definition of a tributary are things the DEP wants the Town to do before asking to increase water withdrawal. Mr. van Lenten said that the Town could be fined if it removed zone A protection. Mr. Armstrong said that existing property rights will have to be grandfathered to preserve property owners’ rights; and he sees that there is much controversy on the subject, and unclear answers in some cases. Ms. Ballinger asked, is an underground stream considered a tributary, Mr. Babin said not necessarily. Mr. Ohrenberger asked if a new stream is found after the adoption of the map, would it be considered a tributary, Ms. Morrissey said that the DEP would have to make that determination. In response to the question, has Town Meeting ever adopted a map that includes the language “this map may contain errors or omissions”, Mr. Limbacher said that as far as he knows, it has not. Mr. Sparks asked what water withdrawal rate is sought, Mr. Babin said he does not know yet. Ms. Morrissey read information from a DEP representative regarding their suggestions and requirements. There was a discussion about enforcement. Ms. Donahue asked who would enforce the bylaw, Mr. Limbacher said someone other than Health and Zoning. Ms. Donahue asked how the map could be changed to make the Planning Board happy with it. He said that when all the tributaries have been identified, it will then be acceptable. Mr. Constantinides said there are legal, technical, and geographical issues here and that he feels he cannot vote on this tonight. Ms. Ballinger asked if there is a real disadvantage to waiting a little bit longer; Mr. Babin said that he expects to have a draft ready for review by February to begin the process for the water withdrawal permit. He said he anticipated submitting the permit in a month or two after the draft is reviewed internally. Mr. Agnew said that DEP feels the Town has a better chance at enforcement than the state does, which is why the DEP wants these in the Town bylaws. Ms. Ballinger asked if there is anything in the Town’s bylaw that exceeds the floor that’s been set by DEP, Ms. Morrissey, Mr. Limbacher, and Mr. Duggan said that there is nothing more stringent than the floor set by the DEP. Mr. Duggan said that zoning maps should not change; he said that he thinks that there is a legal question with adopting the DEP map. Mrs. Morrissey closed by saying that bylaws have been in place since 1987; and that currently these bylaws fit into the zoning bylaws. She also said that bylaw language was reviewed by all departments in 2003 and they were approved in 2004. Summing up by the Advisory Committee: Mr. Constantinides said that more study is needed; Mr. Sparks said that it is clear that we are under the jurisdiction of the DEP, this just makes it official; Ms. Fenton said that the watershed can’t be changed, the map shows where it is; Mr. Grace agreed with Mr. Constantinides regarding potential legal issues, and that it seems that the new bylaw doesn’t change anything; Ms. Donahue said she supported the Water Study committee’s efforts and that we should support their efforts for the water withdrawal increase; Mr. Vegnani said that it is disturbing that the Planning Board does not support this; Mr. Armstrong said that he is also concerned about the Planning Board’s quandary and that he feels he is not in a position to vote in favor for this today; Mr. Lemieux said he feels that this is a formality and that he is in favor of it; Ms. Ballinger said that she too is concerned and that she would request IP’ing this if we were not going for a water withdrawal permit, she said she would like to see some fine tuning, but that she is going to vote for it, so much time has been put into this by the Water Study committee. Mr. Armstrong made a MOTION to postpone the vote until the February 8, 2006 meeting; Mr. Vegnani SECONDED the motion; the motion failed 6-2. On a MOTION by Ms. Donahue, SECONDED by Ms. Fenton, Article 25 was supported as written, 6-1-2. Article 27 is being withdrawn. On a MOTION by Mr. Vegnani, SECONDED by Ms. Donahue, Article 26 was supported as written on a vote of 6-0-3.
Article 21: Village Business Overlay District. Mr. Limbacher said this article is to create an overlay district for the Harbor, Greenbush and North Scituate Business Districts; to assist in creating additional affordable housing; and is a continuation of the master plan, and is an implementation phase of the master plan. The control is by special permit. It also draws on the design review article being presented in Article 22. Mr. Fenton said that public hearings going back to 2000 have been held. Mr. Constantinides said it is a good idea to do this although it is a bit late; he asked about the proposal for converting the Inn at Scituate Harbor to mixed use/condos with parking underneath, how would this proposal fare under the new guidelines. Mr. Fenton said that this gives more guidelines for developments. Mr. Limbacher said that greater densities have been previously granted without the other benefits that are conferred with this article; he said that the targets for this article are Greenbush and North Scituate. Ms. Donahue said that she does not think that one parking space per bedroom is adequate; she also said that mansard roof buildings of the height allowed are not in character with the Greenbush area, the buildings are traditional and colonial in Greenbush village. She also said that she would like to see the language about screening be more precise. Mr. Vegnani asked about parking; Mr. Fenton responded that it is well within the purview of the Planning Board to ask for more parking than the reduced requirement specified in the article. Mr. Armstrong said that the article gives an incentive for more affordable housing, and that he supports the article. Ms. Ballinger commended this proposal, and brought up Ms. Donahue’s question about mansard roofs. Ms. Donahue asked for an amendment to the language regarding roof design. Ms. Ballinger said that the Advisory Committee cannot amend it, but she said it can be amended on Town Meeting floor. Mr. Limbacher said that he would take this under consideration. On a MOTION by Mr. Armstrong, SECONDED by Mr. Lemieux, this article was supported as written on a vote of 8-0-1.
Article 22: Site Plan Design Guidelines. Mr. Limbacher said that this is currently in the regulations but it is an integral part of the overlay district bylaw. Mr. Fenton said that in section D more is required of a developer so design review changes could be made at an earlier stage. There was discussion about the stepping effect, to prevent a canyon effect in the village areas. Mr. Constantinides asked about waivers; Mr. Fenton said the design guidelines would not require a waiver, but consensus. There was a discussion about how the design of the CVS building on Front Street would have been affected by this bylaw. Mr. Vegnani asked if there are standards that have been used to create these guidelines. Mr. Limbacher said that several architects help make these recommendations. On a MOTION by Mr. Sparks, SECONDED by Mr. Constantinides, this article was supported as written unanimously on a vote of 9-0.
Article 23: Maximum Residential Height. Mr, Fenton said the grade issue remains but this legislates the maximum height at 40 feet at the ridgeline of the roof. On a MOTION by Mr. Lemieux, SECONDED by Mr. Grace, this article was supported as written unanimously on a vote of 9-0.
Article 24: Storage Trailers. This changes the temporary period from 12 to 6 months. This is an enforcement issue. On a MOTION by Mr. Grace, SECONDED by Mr. Vegnani, this article was supported as written unanimously on a vote of 9-0.
Article 28: General Bylaw re Eminent Domain. Mr. Armstrong recused himself from this item. Mr. Ball presented. This article moves that the Town vote to amend its General Bylaws by adding a new section 10420F. The Selectmen voted unanimously to support this article. On a MOTION by Ms. Donahue, SECONDED by Mr. Constantinides, this article was supported as written unanimously on a vote of 9-0.
Article 32: Public Health Mutual Aid Agreement. This allows assistance between towns in bioterrorism events etc. Ms. Donahue asked if Town Counsel said we could go ahead with this, Mr. Agnew confirmed this. Mr. Pollard confirmed that the Selectmen unanimously approved this article as written. On a MOTION by Ms. Donahue, SECONDED by Mr. Constantinides, this article was supported unanimously on a vote of 9-0.
7. REVIEW OF ARTICLES FOR SPECIAL TOWN MEETING.
Article 3: Energy Costs. To see if the Town will vote to transfer $15,000 from Sewer Retained Earnings, $27,000 from Water Retained Earnings, and $280,000 from Free Cash to cover estimated shortfalls in energy-related expenses for FY06 said funds to be apportioned by the Town Accountant etc. On a MOTION by Mr. Grace, SECONDED by Mr. Vegnani, this article was supported unanimously on a vote of 9-0.
Article 4: Deauthorization. Mr. Agnew said that only Town Meeting can deauthorize borrowing on completed projects. This is a housekeeping article. On a MOTION by Mr. Grace, SECONDED by Ms. Donahue, this article was supported unanimously on a vote of 9-0.
Article 5: Easement Taking for the Phase II Cliffs Sewer Construction Project. This is for housing the pumping station. On a MOTION by Mr. Vegnani, SECONDED by Ms. Fenton, this article was supported as written on a vote of 8-0-1.
There was a brief discussion about Town Way.
5. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business to conduct at this time.
6. NEW BUSINESS. Approval of Minutes of Prior Meetings. On a MOTION BY Mr. Armstrong, SECONDED by Mr. Vegnani, the Minutes of December 1, 8, and 15, 2005 were unanimously approved as written (9-0). On a MOTION by Ms. Fenton, SECONDED by Ms Donahue, the Minutes of January 12 and 19, 2006 were unanimously approved as written (9-0). There was a request to post the approved Minutes on the Town website, and to correct the names of the Advisory Committee members on the Town website.
7. ADJOURNMENT. On a MOTION by Mr. Armstrong, SECONDED by Mr. Grace, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 pm.
Advisory Committee, April 10, 2013
Advisory Committee, April 9, 2013
Advisory Committee, April 4, 2013
Advisory Committee, March 28, 2013
Advisory Committee, March 19, 2013
Advisory Committee, March 14, 2013
Advisory Committee, March 13, 2013
Advisory Committee, February 21, 2013
Advisory Committee, February 7, 2013
Advisory Committee, January 24, 2013
Advisory Committee, January 10, 2013
Advisory Committee, December 13, 2012
Advisory Committee, November 13, 2012
Advisory Committee, October 25, 2012
Advisory Committee, October 18, 2012
Advisory Committee, October 13, 2012
Advisory Committee, October 4, 2012
Advisory Committee, September 20, 2012
Advisory Committee, September 15, 2012
Advisory Committee, September 13, 2012
Advisory Committee, May 10, 2012
Advisory Committee, March 8, 2012
Advisory Committee, March 1, 2012
Advisory Committee, February 23, 2012
Advisory Committee, February 9, 2012
Advisory Committee, January 26, 2012
Advisory Committee, January 19, 2012
Advisory Committee, December 8, 2011
Advisory Committee, March 3, 2011
Advisory Committee, February 24, 2011
Advisory Committee, February 17, 2011
Advisory Committee, February 15, 2011
Advisory Committee, January 20, 2011
Advisory Committee, January 13, 2011
Advisory Committee, January 6, 2011
Advisory Committe, December 16, 2010
Advisory Committee, November 18, 2010
Advisory Committee, October 28, 2010
Advisory Committee, October 14, 2010
Advisory Committee, September 9, 2010
Advisory Committee, September 9, 2010
Advisory Committee, February 18, 2010
Advisory Committee, February 4, 2010
Advisory Committee, January 14, 2010
Advisory Committee, January 7, 2010
Advisory Committee, November 5, 2009
Advisory Committee, December 17, 2009
Scituate Advisory Board, October 8, 2009
Scituate Advisory Board, September 3, 2009
Advisory Committee, March 5, 2009
Advisory Committee, February 26, 2009
Advisory Committee, February 12, 2009
Advisory Committee, February 5, 2009
Advisory Committee, January 22, 2009
Advisory Committee, January 22, 2009
Advisory Committee, January 22, 2009
Advisory Committee January 15, 2009
Advisory Committee, January 8, 2009
Advisory Committee December 18, 2008
Advisory Committee, December 11, 2008
Advisory Committee, November 20, 2008
Advisory Committee, November 6, 2008
Advisory Committee, October 23, 2008
Advisory Committee, October 9, 2008
Advisory Committee, September 25, 2008
Advisory Committee, July 15, 2008
Advisory Committee, December 6, 2007
Advisory Committee, November 29, 2007
Advisory Committee, November 15, 2007
Advisory Committee, October 25, 2007
Advisory Committee, December 6, 2006
Advisory Committee, November 28, 2006
Advisory Committee, October 11, 2006
Advisory Committee, September 28, 2006
Advisory Committee, July 6, 2006
Advisory Committee, January 19, 2006
Advisory Committee, January 12, 2006
Advisory Committee, March 4, 2006
Advisory Committee, February 2, 2006
Advisory Committee, January 5, 2006
Advisory Committee, February 3, 2005
Advisory Committee, January 20, 2005
Advisory Committee, January 13, 2005
Advisory Committee, December 16, 2004
Advisory Committee, December 9, 2004
Advisory Committee, December 2, 2004
Advisory Committee, November 18, 2004
Advisory Committee, July 1, 2004
Advisory Committee, June 10, 2004
Advisory Committee, June 2, 2004