BOARD OF SELECTMEN

JUNE 5, 2007

Present: Shawn Harris, Chairman; John F. Danehey, Richard W. Murray, Joseph P. Norton, Paul T. Reidy

Richard H. Agnew, Town Administrator

Press: Patriot Ledger, Scituate Mariner

1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM.

2. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA

Mr. Reidy made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to ACCEPT the Agenda for June 5, 2007. SECONDED by Mr. Murray. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0) Mr. Norton was not present for the vote.

3. ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS/ JDR, Jr. Memorial Foundation

Ms. Audrey Reidy, Mr. Jim Reidy, Ms. Shantelle Reidy, Justin Reidy and John Reidy IV were present at tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Harris read a letter dated May 5, 2007 from the Ms. Audrey Reidy for the JDR, Jr. Memorial Foundation. The Foundation donated $3,400 to the Scituate Fire Department for the purchase of two Automatic External Defibrillators (AED’s).

Mr. Murray made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to ACCEPT, on behalf of the Scituate Fire Department, a generous donation from the John David Reidy, Jr. Memorial Foundation to purchase two (2) Automatic External Defibrillators. SECONDED by Mr. Danehey. Discussion – Deputy Fire Chief Rick Judge was present and thanked the Reidy family on behalf of the Scituate Fire Department. No further discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0) Mr. Norton was not present for the vote.

Mr. Harris read a letter dated May 17, 2007 from Police Chief Brian Stewart thanking the JDR, Jr. Memorial Foundation for its generous donation to the K-9 Program.

Mr. Danehey made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to ACCEPT, on behalf of the Scituate Police Department, a generous donation from the John David Reidy, Jr. Memorial Foundation for the Department’s K-9 Program. SECONDED by Mr. Murray. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0) Mr. Norton was not present for the vote.

4. VOTE/ Outdoor Entertainment License/ Lane/ 93 Lawson Road

Mr. Richard Lane, applicant was present and explained that his family will be holding a wedding reception at their home on Friday, July 20, 2007. They plan to have outdoor amplified music at the reception.

Mr. Norton entered the meeting at 6:07 PM.

Mr. Reidy made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to GRANT permission to Richard W. Lane for Outdoor Entertainment at a wedding reception on Friday, July 20, 2007 from 6 PM to 12 Midnight. Entertainment consisting of a DJ with amplified music. The applicant must notify abutters. SECONDED by Mr. Murray. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (5-0)

5. VOTE/ One-Day Wine & Beverages License/ St. Mary’s Parish Center

Mr. Murray made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to GRANT a One-Day Wine and Malt Beverages License to St. Mary’s Parish Center for a summer picnic event to be held on Sunday, June 10, 2007 from 1 PM to 5 PM at the Parish Center, One Kent Street. SECONDED by Mr. Danehey. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (5-0)

6. MEET CONSERVATION COMMISSION APPLICANTS

Anthony Jones, Gilson Road – Mr. Murray explained that Mr. Jones was not present at tonight’s meeting due to a prior commitment. Mr. Murray knows Mr. Jones from his membership on the Waterways Commission. “He is a very solid citizen.”

Stephen J. Young, Old Forge Road – Mr. Young has lived in Scituate for ten years with his family. He feels the Town has great potential and he is very interested in serving on the Conservation Commission. He knows that the Town’s water resources need to be protected. He would like to give the Commission “a fresh face”. He has an engineering degree, understands the scope of large projects, the Town’s By-Laws and would like to see things managed in an objective manner.

Michael F. Collins, Martha’s Lane – Mr. Collins has lived in Scituate his entire life. He is retired, but was a builder/developer. He wants to insure the safety of Scituate’s watershed. He stated that he would work in an unbiased and fair way to best serve both the applicants and the interests of the Town.

Francis J. Sheehan, Doctor’s Hill – Mr. Sheehan has been a Scituate resident since 1972. His children and grandchildren have attended the Scituate Schools. He is retired

from the Port Authority. He noted that a lot of development has been going on in
Scituate and it does not include just single-family homes anymore. He has attended several Planning Board meetings regarding the Doctors Hill development where he lives. That development is still not complete at this time. He is very concerned that proposed developments are invading conservation land closer and closer to the reservoir. He expressed concern about the Harrington project to which he is an abutter. He feels there is not enough concern on the part of the Planning Board to protect Scituate’s water supply.

Arthur Johannesen, Jay Road – Mr. Johannesen has lived in Scituate for twenty-two years and hunted and fished in the town for over thirty-five years. He wants to preserve open space because once it is gone – it is gone forever. He believes there is a lot of opportunity in the West End to procure more land. He has always been an outdoorsman and wants open space to be kept for the children. He stated that he is a Town employee at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Mr. Norton announced that all applicants need to be aware of the time commitment involved with serving on the Commission. He noted that some hearings go on for months and the importance of consistent attendance by members. “It is tough commitment.”

James H. Spelman, Border Street – Mr. Spelman is a twenty-five year resident of Scituate. He has two children and has a sailboat in the Harbor. His home abuts the Gulph River and he believes he can make a viable and thoughtful commitment to do the work that is required on the Conservation Commission. He understands that the Town is at a crossroads with the train and large-scale developments coming in the very near future. “We run the risk of changing the character of the Town.” He understands that the Wetlands Act is in place to protect watersheds and wetlands and that the task of the Commission is “hugely important”. He would be “delighted to give back to the Town”. He has served on the Gulph River Association to protect that watershed. He feels he is reasonably familiar with the Town’s By-Laws, the Wetlands Protection Act, the Department of Environmental Protection’s role and the North and South Rivers Watershed Association. He has a “working knowledge” of wetlands legislation. Mr. Murray asked about Mr. Spelman’s occupation? Mr. Spelman stated that he was a psychiatric social worker.

Doug Shellington, Hawthorne Street – Mr. Shellington stated that he would like to give back to the community. He holds an engineering degree and has had many interesting jobs over the years. He now owns his own business and has a working knowledge of wastewater treatment, air pollution, etc. Mr. Shellington stated that he “has no hidden agenda”. He wants to serve his Town. He has lived in Humarock for sixteen years. He wants to facilitate projects that are “doable and reasonable” for Scituate residents. He is interested in “taking a leadership role to make the right things happen”. Mr. Shellington

stated that he is willing to “commit wholeheartedly” and “give one hundred percent”.

J. Stephen Bjorklund, Captain Daniel Litchfield Lane – Mr. Bjorklund stated that “it is all about balance.” He has lived in Scituate for a little over twenty years and is a contractor for mostly single-family homes – “not large scale”. He has gone through training with the Department of Environmental Protection on rivers protection. Mr. Bjorklund stated that he has taken courses at the Massachusetts Audubon Society and participated in coastal bird programs, Arbor Day programs and has participated in open space development in his own projects. If appointed, he understands that he will sometimes have to recuse himself from some of the Commission’s proceedings. He believes he may be the largest owner of open space in the Town’s West End. He feels he has a reasonable knowledge of the pertinent rules and regulations. He has even worked with some of the Town’s boards in terms of drafting some of the local legislation.

Allan Greenberg, Old Oaken Bucket Road – Mr. Greenberg was unable to be present this evening due to a prior commitment.

Paul Parys, Hawthorne Street – Mr. Parys is a six year resident of Humarock. He is an airline pilot for Southwest Airlines. Prior to becoming a pilot, he ran a drilling company in Texas. This company worked with the government regarding offshore drilling. He has experience with the environment and a strong technical background. He would like to see Town preserved and to see a proper “balance”. He is interested in being a public servant and a “steward to the environment”. Mr. Reidy complimented Mr. Parys on his resume. He asked if Mr. Parys would have difficulty in attending meetings with his airline schedule? Mr. Parys answered “no” because he works twelve days a month and makes his own schedule.

Scott Greenbaum, Damon Road – Mr. Greenbaum has been a resident of Scituate for six years. Prior to that he lived in Baltimore. He has a background in engineering and has worked with developers for thirty years. He is not specifically up to date on conservation codes and regulations, but does know how to read and interpret them as an engineer. He has attended Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals meetings over the years and understands the process. He has also attended some Conservation Commission meetings to understand how the process works. He believes the environmental needs of the Town need to be protected – “once they are destroyed they are hard to put back together”. He now has his own business and will be able to accommodate the Commissions schedule if appointed.

Wayne Robbins, 292 Clapp Road – Mr. Robbins stated that he grew up in Scituate, then moved to Cohasset and is now back in Scituate. He is one of the people who started the Maxwell Trust whose purpose is to protect the land and thus, the group is also interested in protecting the water supply. He is retired and has the time necessary to serve on the
Commission. Mr. Robbins stated that he “cares about the Town and wants to help to
make a difference”. He believes he is “logical, truthful and fair”. He knows he will have a lot to learn to serve on the Commission – “not a problem, I learn every day”.

Penny Scott-Pipes – 8 Booth Hill Road – Ms. Robbins has been a Scituate resident since 1950. She stated that she has no particular expertise other than she is a “concerned citizen and would like to see wetlands protected”. Ms. Robbins stated that she “would like all residents to be treated fairly and equally”. She stated that she has plenty of time to devote to the Commission and has “a lot of common sense”.

Walter Murray – 23 Allen Street – Selectman Richard Murray noted that Mr. Walter Murray was not a relative. Mr. Walter Murray stated that he works in the law office of Donald P. Nagle, which specializes in environmental law and land use. He is currently building a home in Scituate. He has a background in environmental law and has increasing knowledge of the Wetlands Protection Act, local by-laws, the permitting process and Orders of Condition. He would like to see the balance when considering interests of the Town and interests of individuals with private property rights who would like to maximize the use of their own property. Mr. Murray stated that with regard to the time commitment, he is a National Guard officer and may be deployed in the fall. Mr. Danehey stated that if Mr. Murray was deployed, the Board and the Commission would certainly understand.

Fred Magistro, Jr. – 51 Edgewood Road – Mr. Magistro has lived in the Town since 1990 and is retired from the military. He is “available at all times” and is “stubborn – will not be swayed”. Mr. Magistro spoke of the town where he used to live and the problems with toxins in the environment and residents dying of cancer. He is very interested in protecting the environment and does not want to see Scituate overdeveloped. He is very concerned about the various Chapter 40b projects. He has affiliations with Scituate Community Christmas and the Knights of Columbus.

Mr. Vin Kalishes, Conservation Agent, stated that any new appointees will need to be “up to speed” for the Commission’s next meeting on Monday, June 11, 2007.

Michael Bleakie – 135 Border Street – Mr. Bleakie explained that he has served on the Conservation Commission for almost three years and is interested in re-appointment. He has only missed four to five meetings during those years and has taken his appointment very seriously. He makes site visits for the Commission and has found it takes approximately one and one half years to become familiar with the Wetlands Protection Act and the Town’s by-laws as they relate to conservation matters. He believes the current Commission has interpreted both Act and the by-laws very well. He would like to continue to serve the Town by serving on the Commission.

Kenneth Conway - 15 Eagle Nest Road – Mr. Conway stated that he has been serving on the Commission for almost three years. He owns a large piece of open space in
Scituate and has owned property in the Town for twenty-eight years. He is an engineer by profession and also attended business school. He is a Viet Nam veteran. He has owned healthcare and biotech companies. He is semi-retired at this point. He also believes it takes over a year to fully understands the Wetlands Protection Act. He believes in strategic planning for the Town and he has personally worked on the Driftway walkway and beach restoration. He would “appreciate the opportunity to work on the Commission for another three years”.

7. 6:30 PM/ PUBLIC HEARING/ Appeal of “Order of the Animal Control Board” Code
of ByLaws Section 30400

Mr. Harris called the Public Hearing to order at 6:45 PM. Mr. Harris stated that he is the second cousin of Julie Blanchard Connor, mother of the bite victim, in this matter and that the Connor family is one of his oil business customers. He asked if anyone involved in tonight’s proceedings would have a problem with this association? Mr. Gregg Corbo, Town Counsel, asked Mr. Harris if his relationship with the victim would not allow him to judge this matter impartially? Mr. Harris answered “no”. Attorney Edward McVinney, attorney for dog owner Mr. Raj Dhameja, stated that he had “no objection” to Mr. Harris participating in this Public Hearing.

Mr. Harris stated that “a child was bitten by a dog at 50 Woodworth Lane on March 17, 2007. The complaint was heard by the Animal Control Board at a Public Hearing held on April 11, 2007. The Animal Control Board issued an “Order” on April 13, 2007 that the dog be euthanized. The owner of the dog appealed this decision to the Board of Selectmen on April 19, 2007. Tonight’s hearing pertains to the appeal of the Order of the Animal Control Board”.

Mr. Harris asked that all witnesses stand to be “sworn in” and he asked the following question: “Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you will give at this hearing is the complete truth”? Those standing all answered “yes” to this question.

At this time, Mr. Harris turned the Public Hearing over to Mr. Gregg Corbo, Town Counsel. Mr. Corbo introduced himself and addressed the Selectmen stating that they must make a determination based on the evidence they hear. The Selectmen may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Animal Control Board. (1) By affirming the decision they will deem that the dog is a nuisance by reason of vicious disposition, or (2) list conditions in lieu of euthanizing the dog, or (3) reverse and vacate the Order of the Animal Control Board.

Mr. Corbo stated that he would begin the Public Hearing with a statement from the

Complainant and then Attorney McVinney may ask questions. Once everyone is heard and all questions have been asked, Mr. Harris will close the public comment period of the
proceedings and the Selectmen will deliberate in open session. Mr. Murray asked if the Selectmen may ask questions as the hearing goes along? Mr. Corbo answered “yes” and reminded that all questions must go through Mr. Harris as Chairman.

Ms. Heidi Blanchard, 50 Woodworth Lane, stated that on March 17, 2007, she telephoned Ms. Julie Connor ( a relative on her husband’s side) to ask if her son Ryan would like to come over and play with her (Blanchard’s ) son. Ryan Connor came over to play with her seven year old twins. Ms. Blanchard stated she also has an infant. There was snow on the ground that day and the boys were playing on scooters and playing in the snow. Ms. Blanchard stated that she put her infant in a stroller at this time. She noticed that the neighbor’s dog was barking, which was “not unusual”. She next saw the dog owner’s son chasing the dog down the street, it appeared it had broken out of its restraint. The dog owner’s son was telling the dog to stop. The dog crossed the road onto the Blanchard’s property, 50 Woodworth Lane, and jumped on top of Ryan Connor. Ryan could not get up and it appeared the dog was biting on Ryan’s sneakers. Ms. Blanchard stated that “the child did not even know that the dog was there”. The dog owner’s son pulled the dog off of Ryan. Ms. Blanchard stated that it appeared that Ryan had been bitten, “he was hysterical”. Ms. Blanchard picked Ryan up and lifted up his pant leg. At this time, photographs of the bite on Ryan’s leg were distributed to the Selectmen. It was noted that a dog bite wound cannot be stitched up due to a possible infection. Mr. Corbo asked what Ryan was doing prior to the attack? Ms. Blanchard stated that Ryan was with his scooter lying close to the ground when the dog attacked. Mr. Murray asked for clarification. Is he correct in understanding that the dog was running down the street chased by the son of the owner, the dog crossed the street, the child was not facing the dog and was knocked down? Ms. Blanchard stated that the child was not “knocked down” – he was already close the ground. Mr. Murray asked if the dog’s tail was wagging when it was on the child? Ms. Blanchard answered that she did not know. She did not even think, at the time, that a bite had occurred. She did not even check Ryan’s body for a while after the incident. Ms. Blanchard stated that she “relived the moment” and noted that she was very close to where the attack took place. She did not think that the dog would have done damage. Mr. Corbo asked Ms. Blanchard if when she saw the dog running in the street – did she have any reason to believe the dog would attack? Ms. Blanchard answered “no”. Mr. Corbo asked if the dog was barking? Ms. Blanchard answered “no, not at that time, but it did bark in the yard. The dog had been in the yard barking for hours that day. It barked at people walking by, cars, etc.” Mr. Corbo asked if the dog had been out in its yard on other days when children had been playing in her front yard? Ms. Blanchard answered “yes”. Mr. Corbo asked if there was any reason for the dog to break through the fence on this particular day? Ms. Blanchard answered “no”. Mr. Corbo asked if the behavior of the children playing was different on that day causing the dog to break through the fence? Ms. Blanchard answered “no”.

Ms. Blanchard stated that she likes dogs and that a lot of her neighbors have them. She initially heard from the dog owner after the bite, but after hearing nothing more after twenty-four hours as to how the dog would be managed – she initiated the hearing with the Animal Control Board. The electric fence failed and the dog weighs 70 pounds. Ms. Blanchard again stated that she has young children. Mr. Danehey asked how far the Blanchards home is from the Dhameja’s home? Ms. Blanchard answered “next door”. Mr. Danehey asked if Ms. Blanchard had seen the Dhameja’s dog loose before? Ms. Blanchard answered “no, but other neighbors have”. Mr. Reidy believes this will be a difficult decision for this Board to make. He asked Ms. Blanchard what she would do if she was in the Board’s position? Ms. Blanchard stated that it was her understanding that when a dog bit a child, the dog would be gone. She stated that she does not know about dog behavior, that is why she left the decision to the Animal Control Board. That means that the neighbors do not have to make a decision in this matter. Mr. Reidy stated that he shares Ms. Blanchard’s concerns. When he was a child he had a similar experience and when a dog bit – it was gone. This is not an easy situation for anyone involved. Ms. Blanchard stated that she learned a lot during the Animal Control hearing. Being a dog owner is a huge commitment. Ms. Blanchard respects the chairman of the Animal Control Board and her experience. Ms. Blanchard stated that it “would not really be fair for me to have an opinion”, she just never wants this to happen to another child. Ms. Blanchard stated that she had “a moral obligation” to follow this through. Mr. Reidy noted that the Board would not be able to guarantee that this would not happen again. Mr. Corbo asked Ms. Blanchard if she had been contacted again by Mr. Dhameja in an effort to satisfy concerns about safety? Ms. Blanchard stated that Mr. Dhameja originally said “he wanted to do what was right for the neighborhood”. No, he did not speak with Ms. Blanchard again. Mr. McVinney did not pose any questions to Ms. Blanchard. Mr. McVinney did ask about authenticity of the photographs presented this evening. Mr. Connor stated that he took the photographs of his son’s leg and “no, they were not authenticated”. Mr. Norton asked what kind of dog was involved? Golden Retriever.

Mr. Mike Connor, 11 Linden Avenue, father of Ryan Connor, stated that he was “not here to get even – there is no animosity, but this positively cannot happen again”. Mr. Connor stated that for the past three months, his son has been in emotional distress. His (Ryan’s) anxiety level is extremely high, doctors have had to change his bandages, etc. He feels that any future distress this dog may cause is a problem. Mr. Connor noted that Mr. Dhameja has children and it is their dog. He stated that he is not certain of what the end result will be, but his son went over and played with his third cousins and has not played over there since. Ryan will always have a scar on his leg and there have been discussions about future plastic surgery. “This cannot happen again.” Mr. Corbo asked Mr. Connor if he has a dog? Mr. Connor answered “no”. Mr. Corbo asked Mr. Connor if prior to this incident if Ryan was around dogs? Mr. Connor answered “yes, my sister had a dog, my in-laws have a dog and our friends have dogs.” Mr. Corbo asked if the manner in which Ryan now interacts with dogs has changed? Mr. Connor answered, “no, not if he knows the dogs. If it is a strange dog – yes, he is afraid of them – his anxiety level
rises”. Mr. Corbo confirmed that Ryan had not played at the Blanchard’s home since the
incident? Mr. Connor answered that Ryan may have played inside the Blanchard’s home on one occasion. Mr. Corbo asked if Ryan used to like going to the Blanchard’s home before? Mr. Connor answered “yes, he went over frequently”. Mr. Corbo asked if when the weather improves, would Ryan be going over to the Blanchard’s to play? Mr. Connor
answered that when Ryan talks about going to the Blanchards and talks about the dog, we tell him that the dog will be somewhere else. He stated that “if Ryan sees the dog over there it will probably cause distress”. Mr. Corbo asked if Ryan is undergoing any type of therapy? Mr. Connor answered, “no, just his guidance counselor at school”. Mr. Corbo asked if Ryan was undergoing any continuing physical treatment? Mr. Connor answered “no, he just has a scar which may get bigger”. Mr. Corbo asked if Ryan was in pain? Mr. Connor answered, “no physical pain; he does have emotional distress”. Mr. Danehey asked how far the Connor’s home was from the Dhameja’s? Mr. Connor answered, “two miles or so”. Mr. Danehey asked when the photographs of Ryan’s leg were taken? Mr. Connor answered “that night”. Mr. Danehey asked if the photographs were “fair and accurate”? Mr. Connor answered “yes”. Mr. McVinney asked if the photographs depicted a 2-3 inch cut? Mr. Connor answered “yes, a single cut”. Mr. Connor continued by stating it was “one major cut and four puncture wounds (not depicted in the photograph). Mr. Danehey asked if there had been infection or complications with the wound? Mr. Connor answered “no”.

Mr. Murray thanked Mr. Connor for his testimony. It is important regardless of the outcome. Mr. Reidy noted that this was a “sizeable gash” considering it was on the leg of a six-year old child. He asked that everyone consider the circumference of a six year old’s leg.

Mr. Corbo asked if Ms. Connor would like to speak? Ms. Connor answered “no, that my husband spoke well”. Mr. Corbo asked Officer Allison O’Neil to speak about the events of March 17, 2007. Officer O’Neil responded to a call at 50 Woodworth Lane. Ryan O’Connor was sitting on the steps of the home. She saw a bite consistent with the photographs. Officer O’Neil stated that when she arrived, the dog was back at the owner’s home. She wrote up a muzzle order until the Animal Control Officer arrived. Mr. Corbo asked if the victim was still at 50 Woodworth Lane at this time. Officer O’Neil answered “yes, I waited there until the mother arrived”. Mr. Corbo asked about the severity of the injury to the boy? Officer O’Neil stated that it was a “serious bite”. Mr. McVinney asked Officer O’Neil if other than her police training, did she have expertise in medicine? Officer O’Neil answered, “No, I do not”.

Mr. Corbo asked for a statement from the Animal Control Officer, Kim Stewart. Officer Stewart read the following statement into the record: “On Saturday, March 17th at 14:25 Scituate Police received a 911 call reporting a medical aid at #50 Woodworth Lane. A dog had bitten a 6 year-old boy. Officer Allison O’Neil responded to the scene and notified me via telephone immediately of the incident as I was off duty. The 6 year-old
was transported to SSH via ambulance from the scene. Officer O’Neil spoke to witnesses who reported the dog came from the property at #58 Woodworth Lane, knocked the boy down and bit his leg. The owner of the dog was identified as Raj Dhameja and the dog was later identified as “JD”, an 18 month old, neutered male, Golden Retriever. The dog was secured by the owner immediately following the incident. “JD” Dhameja was
quarantined for the ten days as required by State law and cited for unleashed dog and failure to license. He was up to date on his rabies inoculations through records at Weymouth VCA. He was released from quarantine March 27th without incident and placed under a muzzle order, which is still in place today.” Mr. Corbo asked if Officer Stewart responded to the scene shortly after the bite incident? Officer Stewart answered “yes”. Mr. Corbo asked if she saw the dog? Officer Stewart answered “yes, it was in a crate and was agitated that she (Stewart) was there, but that is not atypical”. Mr. Corbo asked where the dog was quarantined? Officer Stewart stated that the dog was quarantined at its home. A dog may be quarantined at home and leash walked by an adult. Mr. Corbo asked if this order was complied with? Officer Stewart answered “yes”. Mr. Corbo asked if Officer Stewart was aware of other incidents with this dog? Officer Stewart answered “no”. Mr. Murray asked if the muzzled dog could be outside of the home? Officer Stewart answered “yes”. The dog wore a “basket muzzle” that does not hold the dog’s mouth shut and is considered humane. Mr. Norton asked how many dog bite incidents are reported to Ms. Stewart each year? Officer Stewart answered “approximately fifteen to twenty of all descriptions”. Mr. Norton asked how this case differs from other first time bite cases? Officer Stewart acknowledged that this is a difficult case, but she considered this to be a “very serious bite”. She believes that the Animal Control Board put together very “thoughtful” comments for the Selectmen. Mr. Norton asked how many of the year’s fifteen to twenty bites went before the Animal Control Board? Officer Stewart answered “none”. Mr. Norton asked why? Officer Stewart answered “ the severity”. She continued by stating that dogs bite for all different reasons. There are often nips or scratches. This bite was severe. Discussion continued on dog bite hearings over the past ten years. Mr. Corbo asked Officer Stewart how long she had served as the Animal Control Officer? Officer Stewart answered “twelve years”. Mr. Corbo asked Officer Stewart during those twelve years on how many occasions she had issued a “muzzle order”? Officer Stewart answered “one other time – the severity of the bite warranted it”. Mr. Reidy noted the difficult decision the Animal Control Board and the Animal Control Officer had to make in this case. He is very concerned that the dog did not bark before the attack – “there was no warning”. We have no guarantee that this will not happen again. Officer Stewart stated that she supports the Animal Control Board’s decision. Mr. Harris commended the Animal Control Board and Officer Stewart on their thorough investigation of this matter. He stated that when he was younger, he was a newspaper boy and was bitten many times when going on peoples’ properties. But the key there was – he entered peoples’ property to deliver the newspaper. This particular dog left his (dog’s) yard, entered another yard and bit a child. “I can’t get over that – it is totally different than if someone entered onto the dog’s property.” Mr. Corbo

asked if Mr. McVinney had any questions for the witness. Mr. McVinney answered “no”.

Mr. Andrew Blanchard, 50 Woodworth Lane, was the next witness. Mr. Blanchard stated that he is a fourth generation Scituate resident and that he and his family take this incident very seriously. It was Mr. Blanchard’s family that initiated the Animal Control
Board’s hearing on this matter. There are three children in his family. Mr. Blanchard stated that his family did not ask for the dog to be euthanized and do not hold Mr. Dhameja personally responsible. Mr. and Mrs. Blanchard’s concern is for their family and people visiting their (Blanchard’s) home. Mr. Blanchard referenced a petition signed by thirty neighbors stating that they do not want a dog that bites in their neighborhood. He further stated that “it is very difficult to be here, but this is serious enough that we needed to be here”. He stated that he “is sure the neighbors are not happy with us”. Mr. Corbo asked if Mr. Blanchard witnessed the incident? Mr. Blanchard answered “no, I arrived before the ambulance came”. Mr. Corbo asked Mr. Blanchard if he had had any experience with the Dhameja’s dog? Mr. Blanchard stated that he has seen the dog in the corner of the Dhameja’s yard barking. He has also seen the dog barking in the corner of the property after the date of the incident. Mr. Corbo asked if the muzzle was visible at that time? Mr. Blanchard was not certain whether the muzzle was on or not. Mr. McVinney asked Mr. Blanchard that if he never asked for the dog to be euthanized, would he be satisfied with some other alternative? Mr. Blanchard answered that “it is not up to me. I do not want a dog living next door that bites children”. Mr. McVinney stated this “is not a dog that bites children – it bit one child”. Mr. Blanchard stated that he was still “not comfortable”. Mr. McVinney asked Mr. Blanchard if he has any knowledge that this dog bit any other child? Mr. Blanchard answered “no”.

Mr. Corbo asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the Animal Control Board’s decision? Ms. Dorothy O’Connor, Chairman of the Animal Control Board, spoke about the summary she wrote explaining why the Board made its decision. Ms. O’Connor stated that she was speaking for the entire Board when she says “what a very painful and difficult decision this is – for everyone. It is not a decision we took lightly. We feel it is in the best interest of everyone involved”. Ms. O’Connor summarized the five (5) major points on which the decision was based: (1) severity of the bite – the photographs, Mr. Connor’s testimony, the dog’s action of grab, shake and tear creating a laceration and puncture wound through blue jeans. The dog was pursued by the owner’s child – “we don’t know what the trigger was”. The dog only stopped when a family member “grabbed him off Ryan”. Ms. O’Connor stated that in her professional opinion, after analyzing the testimony, there did not appear to be any “body language in the attack. If and when the dog should bite again it most likely will be the same severity”. (2) Biting of this kind is a “major behavioral problem”. The dog bit a child. A dog that has inflicted such a bite has to be managed for the rest of its life by a family that understands this type of animal and has experience. Mr. Dhameja has admitted that he does not know about dogs – this is the first dog he has owned. (3) The Dhameja family has children and
it would understandable, if by accident, they or a visitor to the home left open a door or gate and the dog could escape. (4) This dog is a golden retriever and known to be a friendly breed. If it got loose again or was out on the front lawn, the majority of people would not think the dog would be aggressive. (5) It is significant that the Animal Control Officer has only issued a muzzle order twice in the last twelve years and that this was one of the dogs ordered muzzled.

Ms. O’Connor noted a neighbor’s letter explaining that they were confronted by this dog when walking in the neighborhood. Now this dog has bitten – “we need to heed these warnings”. Ms. O’Connor explained that she is a nationally certified pet dog trainer and dog behavior counselor. She has her own business and works with the Animal Rescue League where she evaluates dogs as to whether they are adoptable or not. Mr. Corbo asked Ms. O’Connor how many years she had served on the Animal Control Board? Ms. O’Connor answered “two years”. Mr. Corbo asked how many dog bite hearings had been heard during that time? Ms. O’Connor answered that this was the first one.

Mr. Danehey asked Ms. O’Connor what standard the Selectmen would apply when going forward? Ms. O’Connor answered “severity of the bite”. Mr. Danehey asked if this was a behavioral problem for an eighteen-month dog – could the behavior be modified through training? Ms. O’Connor stated that dogs can be trained at any age and behavior can be modified. Would there be a 100% guarantee that the dog would never bite again – no. Mr. Danehey asked if, in Ms. O’Connor’s professional opinion, the dog could be relocated? Ms. O’Connor answered that “it would not be responsible to take a problem and give it someone else”. Mr. Harris asked if there was anywhere this dog could be safely placed? Ms. O’Connor knows of a sanctuary in Utah that takes all types of dogs. She feels, however, that this dog poses a risk to humans in certain circumstances and “we don’t know what the trigger is”. Mr. Murray asked for clarification on whether the dog was fleeing the running child or running towards the eventual victim? Ms. Blanchard stated that there was “no way to tell”. Mr. Corbo asked Ms. O’Connor to explain in detail how the severity of this one bite could be an indicator for the potential of similar behavior in the future. Ms. O’Connor stated that “all dogs can bite. When a dog bites humans – some dogs bite with excessive force. This dog was perhaps not trained prior to 16 weeks to have a “soft mouth”. A dog with a “hard mouth” will not bite softly the next time. It has no bite inhibition. Mr. Corbo asked for the age of the dog? Ms. O’Connor answered “eighteen months – it has not been a puppy since five months.” Mr. McVinney did not have any questions for Ms. O’Connor. Mr. Corbo asked if any other Animal Control Board members wanted to be heard? Mr. Arthur Brown, Board member, noted that this dog often sat in the corner of its property barking at children. He suggested that the Selectmen might want to ask the Blanchards for further information. He also suggested that Mr. Dhameja’s son be asked why the dog was loose on this day.

Mr. McVinney stated that “any time something like this happens there is cause for concern. It is shocking, painful and annoying”. He spoke about the “standard” and the

fact that the dog must be labeled a nuisance by reason of vicious disposition. “It can’t be guaranteed that it won’t happen again or for any other dog for that matter.” He wondered if “perhaps some less restrictive steps would be considered for the dog”.

Mr. Dhameja, dog owner, apologized to the families. He feels he followed up “all the way”. He went to the Blanchard’s house and obtained the Connor’s telephone number. Mr. Dhameja stated that the continually tried to find out how the child was – his concern was “immense”. This event was not taken lightly by his family. He tried to comply with everything that was asked of him. He feels he “explored every avenue” and discussed everything with Animal Control Officer Stewart. He stated that “this was a very difficult situation for us”. Mr. Dhameja stated that he consulted with Stephanie Schwartz, an animal behaviorist, who was recommended by the VCA hospital. Ms. Schwartz has been an animal behaviorist for twenty years. She believes this dog is a puppy and displayed “playful aggression” in this case. Ms. Schwartz submitted a report, which is part of the file on this matter. Mr. Dhameja stated that the report speaks for itself. He stated that his family is “first time dog owners” and that dog has had two visits with Ms. Schwartz. He repeated that Ms. Schwartz believes this dog is still a puppy and the act was one of “playful aggression”. Mr. Dhameja stated that the dog used to run up and down the boundary of the electric fence. He discussed this fact with Ms. Schwartz, but it does not appear in her report. Mr. Reidy asked if the dog chased cars? Mr. Dhameja answered “yes”. He added that the dog is fully immunized and is wearing a muzzle. Mr. Dhameja told Ms. Schwartz about the incident. She obviously was not present at the time of the incident and had to draw some conclusions. Discussion continued on the actual bite depicted in the photographs and that dog bites usually display two, semi round bites. Ms. Schwartz feels that when the dog was pulled off by Mr. Dhameja’s son – that is when the “straight bite” happened. This conclusion was not brought up at the first hearing before the Animal Control Board. Mr. Dhameja stated that for the last two weeks, the dog has undergone three times a week training sessions with a dog trainer that has been in the business for nine years. He stated that the dog has “not bitten once”. The dog is also taken for one and one half hour walks. Mr. Dhameja stated that the dog “never attacked any before or since”. He stated that the Blanchards’ and Connors’ feelings are “stretched” (? – the recording secretary is not certain if this was the word used). Mr. Dhameja noted the snow that day. 20” – 24” of snow could have been laying on the dog’s electric fence line due snowplow drifts. That could have been a factor in lessening the impact of the electric fence. A certain depth of snow can lessen the impact. Mr. Dhameja checked the electric fence unit one hour after the incident and it was on. He feels he did everything possible right after the incident and shared what he was doing with the Blanchards. All options were discussed the next morning. He believes that euthanasia is a “stretch”. Mr. Dhameja and his family are looking for another home at this time. Mr. Corbo asked if Mr. Dhameja was home when the incident occurred. Mr. Dhameja answered “no. Mr. Dhameja stated that the dog was always let out when a family member returned home and it never broke through the electric fence line before. Mr. Dhameja asked what happened when the dog broke through the fence? Mr. Dhameja
stated that his son who is fourteen years old and five foot ten inches told him (Mr. Dhameja) that the dog broke the fence, ran across the street and grabbed the child’s leg. Within three seconds, his son grabbed the dog and brought it back home. Mr. Corbo asked if the electric fence goes all around the yard? Mr. Dhameja answered “yes”. Mr. Corbo asked “front and back”? Mr. Dhameja answered “yes”. Mr. Corbo asked what Mr. Dhameja would do to make certain that the dog would not break through the electric fence again? Mr. Dhameja answered “we will do whatever it takes”. Mr. Corbo asked if he would install a fence enclosure? Mr. Dhameja answered “no problem. If we’ve gone this far to train him – we will go all the way”. Mr. Norton asked Mr. Dhameja if he would be willing to build a stockade or chain link fence? Mr. Dhameja answered “yes, to your requirement and specification. We will abide by this whether we move or not within a four week period”. Mr. Reidy asked about a reference to the “Dog Butler”. Mr. Dhameja stated that this is a dog walking service. The dog is walked by the service three times a week for one and one half hours per day. The strategy is to work with the dog in a way that will help. Mr. Reidy noted that Ms. O’Connor recommended not giving the dog to a inexperienced dog walker. Mr. Dhameja stated that Ms. Schwartz recommended dog walking. Mr. Reidy has a problem with the terminology “playful aggression”. Did she see the photograph? Mr. Dhameja stated that Ms. Schwarz had not seen the photograph. Mr. Reidy asked if one of Mr. Dhameja’s children had been bitten – would he have followed the same course of action? Mr. Dhameja answered “yes, the cut was caused when the dog was pulled away”. Mr. Reidy noted that it appears the dog ran at the child and the child was either knocked to the ground or was attacked when lying on the ground. If the child was already on the ground “it is even worse”. This is a problem. Should the dog have let go before it was pulled off? Mr. Reidy stated that if this was his dog and it had bitten his(Reidy’s) child – “the dog would be gone. There is no cloudiness in my mind. The Animal Control Board and the Animal Control Officer have made their decision. There is nothing remotely evident that their decision was not correct”. Mr. Harris asked what would have happened if the infant had been attacked. He continued by asking about the dog being placed in a covered cage or run? He (Harris) believes that the dog would bark constantly and be driven crazy being penned that way. Could this type of restraint make the problem worse? A chain link fence might make it worse because it could see other dogs and children. Maybe a six-foot stockade type of fence should be installed so the dog cannot see out. A door could open from the house right into the enclosure and any other door would be locked. Mr. Reidy noted that an outer door could still be opened. Mr. Norton asked if the Animal Control Board would be against this type
of enclosure? Ms. O’Connor answered “if you don’t support the Animal Control Board’s vote, an enclosure would be the only solution”.

Mr. Murray asked Mr. Dhameja if the dog is walked the remaining days of the week? Mr. Dhameja answered that he walks the dog. Mr. Murray asked if his children are involved with the dog? Mr. Dhameja answered “yes, but they have commitments”. Mr. Danehey asked if the Dhameja’s compliance with the muzzle order and dog walking, etc. is ongoing? Mr. Dhameja answered “yes and obedience training is ongoing two times a
week”. Mr. Danehey asked if the dog is out on the electric fence? Mr. Dhameja answered “no”. Mr. Danehey asked if Mr. Dhameja had contacted the dog’s breeder after this incident? Mr. Dhameja answered that they contacted Debbie’s Pet Land where they purchased the dog. Mr. Danehey asked if the dog walker walks the dog in the
neighborhood? Mr. Dhameja answered “no, the dog is taken to a dog park”. Mr. Danehey believes the fact that the Dhamejas may be relocating to be irrelevant.

Mr. Corbo asked if Mr. Dhameja if his children ever walk the dog off their property? Mr. Dhameja answered “no, if the children have the dog on a leash – it is a double leash”. Mr. Dhameja stated that when he walks the dog he walks it with one leash and with the muzzle in place. Mr. Corbo asked if any of the neighbors had witnessed Mr. Dhameja walking the dog? The Blanchards stated they had not seen the dog walked. Mr. Dhameja stated that he walks the dog at 4:30 AM.

Mr. Corbo stated that the Town has no further testimony at this time. Mr. Corbo asked Mr. McVinney he had any further witnesses. Mr. McVinney answered “no”. Mr. McVinney asked the Selectmen to go by the “standard” – “vicious disposition”. He noted Mr. Dhameja’s explanation of the actions taken since the incident. “He has done everything far and away that any dog owner can do”. Mr. McVinney respectfully asked if the Board might consider a less restrictive action than euthanasia.

Mr. Harris closed the public comment period of the hearing at 8:22 PM.

Mr. Danehey stated that there are two factors in this case that trouble him, (1) bite was a “hard mouth”bite and (2) the dog was not on its own property. Sometimes there is a “taunting” factor, but in this case the dog went off its property and found the child. The severity of the bite should not be the “standard” – it really concerns the facts of the situation. He stated that he means no disrespect to the Board, but the type of breed is irrelevant. Mr. Danehey cited a dog bite case that took place in town approximately nine years ago – four separate bites were documented for that dog and the Board at that time voted in favor of euthanasia. Mr. Danehey stated that he is not in favor of euthanasia in this case. He would like to see conditions set in place such as a fence and muzzle. He is nervous about this because he (Danehey) has young children, but this comes down to a function of the owner. The owner will have to take a lot of responsibility in this case.

Mr. Reidy stated that he “will take the other tack. If it were my child, I would be outraged right now”. This six-year old child got a severe laceration. When he (Reidy) was a child he was attacked by a dog and the dog had to be pulled off. “I hope I am not sitting here and see this happen to some other child. My apologies to you (Dhameja) and your family and I appreciate what you have done.”

Mr. Norton stated that “this is very difficult”. We see the pictures of the bite, we all have children and grandchildren – we are very upset. The people that are involved are leaving
it up to the Animal Control Board. The decision to euthanize an animal is a very, very difficult one. This was this animal’s first bite. If the Town decided to euthanize every animal that bit – twelve to fourteen dogs would have been euthanized this year. He would like to see conditions set that everyone could live with. Mr. Norton stated that he
would probably vote to support the Animal Control Board’s recommendation, but it is a vote he is not happy to make.

Mr. Murray agreed that this is a tough decision to make. He has four children and used to have a Golden Retriever. He has had dogs his whole life. He does agree with Mr. Connor that this cannot happen again. In addition he knows that no structure will guarantee that this dog will not bite again. He would recommend setting extensive conditions in this case. Stockade, muzzle, etc. If any transgression occurs, for example – if the dog is seen off its property unattended – “that is it – it’s gone. Zero flexibility”. He feels it is a “positive” that the Dhameja family has taken corrective action. It is too bad these actions were not taken at an earlier time. He is favor of option #2 where the dog will not be euthanized, but strict conditions will be set in place for this animal – fence, muzzle, etc.

Mr. Norton asked the Chairman if perhaps a five-minute recess could be taken in which Ms. O’Connor, Mr. Dhameja and the Connors could speak to each other in an effort to reach some type of agreement. Ms. O’Connor stated that the Blanchards and the Connors have made it clear that they will go with what the Animal Control Board decides in this matter.

Mr. Corbo noted that if it is the sentiment of the Board to explore what alternative forms of restraint are available – this hearing could be recessed with instructions that the Animal Control Board consider forms of restraint for this dog and then come back with their decision. He stated that the hearing process should not be delayed. There have been no subsequent incidents with this dog and it appears that the Animal Control Board’s order is being complied with. The dog owner could be given a chance to come up with a plan. The Board and neighbors can comment on the plan and then a presentation can be made to the Selectmen. Mr. Reidy noted that the Animal Control Board and the Animal Control Officer have already made their decision. He does not believe it is correct to ask them to go back and review this – they have made their decision and recommendation.

Mr. Murray stated that he agrees with Mr. Reidy in terms of procedure. He appreciates Mr. Norton’s suggestion, but feels it is incumbent to make a decision at this time.

Mr. Harris stated that he has owned dogs his entire life and it is a very difficult decision. He will vote to put the dog down because he does not want this type of thing to happen again.

Mr. Reidy made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to FIND that the

dog known as “JD”, which is owned by Raj Dhameja and kept at 58 Woodworth
Lane is a nuisance by reason of vicious disposition based upon said dog’s action of attacking a child without provocation and that the Board affirm the order of the Animal Control Commission requiring that said dog be humanely euthanized within
seven days of the owner’s receipt of notice of this decision. SECONDED by Mr. Norton. Discussion – Mr. Norton stated that he is very uncomfortable with this matter, but will vote to support the Animal Control Board and the Animal Control Officer. “The process will continue.” Mr. Reidy stated that he “takes no pleasure in this. It is a matter of being responsible. I apologize to Mr. Dhameja and his family”. Mr. Harris agreed that this is not an easy decision. Mr. Danehey thanked everyone for their participation in the hearing this evening. The Selectmen are the board that reviewed the findings of the
Animal Control Board and the Animal Control Officer. He believes that based on the facts presented in this case that these findings should be reversed by the Selectmen. This is not meant as a slight to the Connors and Blanchards. Mr. Murray believes the Animal Control Board has done a good job, but this is a tough decision. No further discussion.
Harris, Reidy and Norton voted in favor of the motion. Murray and Danehey voted “no”. The motion carries. (3-2)

8. WALK-IN PERIOD

Mr. George Kelley, 450 Country Way, stated that he owns two houses and several pieces of land in Scituate. Both his tax bills and his sticker application forms came in multiple envelopes, which wastes both paper and money. His water bills arrive the same way. He asked what the Selectmen could do about this? He further stated that a potential site he had recommended to the Board for a fire station on Gannett Road is still available. Mr. Reidy asked Mr. O’Brien if he rents some of his properties? Mr. O’Brien answered “no”. Mr. Reidy commended Ms. Manning and Ms. Donovan on the sticker mail-in program. It might be able to be improved upon, but overall it is a good system. Mr. Agnew will check on applications being sent to vacant land. He further stated that it is State law that a tax bill must be generated for individual properties. Mr. Stephen Bjorklund has found that some of his tax bills are grouped and some are not.

A five-minute break was taken at this time.

Mr. Robert Duncan, 44 Border Street and Alternate Member of the Planning Board, stated that he was concerned about a proposed development on the Harrington property located near Tack Factory Pond. He believes the proposed development will have an adverse effect on the Town reservoir. He understands that this development is currently under review by the Town, but he has concerns about the wetlands delineation. Apparently one of the abutters at the bottom of the hill has results of a very different wetlands delineation. Mr. Duncan stated that he wanted to bring this to the attention of the Selectmen in their capacity as the Water Commissioners of the Town. Mr. Jeff

Rosen, Chairman of the Water Resource Committee, stated that he had sent a memorandum to the Selectmen regarding the Harrington property development on April 25, 2007. The Committee is not “anti-development”, but there were concerns raised about this development being built on the edge of the Town’s only reservoir. The Committee voiced their concerns to the Planning Board and they(Planning Board) agreed that it would be looked at further. The Planning Board eventually agreed to approve the plan and also place a condition on it as to whether a tributary does or does not exist on the property. At this point, it is the position of the Water Resource Committee that the plan has not been adequately reviewed by the Planning Board. The Committee asks that the Selectmen ask for clarification from the Planning Board. Mr. Norton expressed concern that the recommendations of various appointed, qualified boards and committees are not being read and discussed. Mr. Agnew noted that the Town of Scituate is an abutter to the proposed development. The Planning Board made their decision on this development on May 24, 2007. Mr. Rosen stated that “in terms of timing, we are coming to the table late on this, but this one case pertains to such an important spot in Town – we needed to come forward on this”.

Mr. Reidy stated that he spoke to the neighbors on Old Forge Road and an attorney on this matter. He believed that the Water Resource Committee’s report to the Planning Board on this matter would suffice. “Can we as an abutter (the Town), voice our concern?” Mr. Agnew stated that this development was discussed briefly during the weekly Staff meeting this morning. Due to the recent wetlands delineation information presented by Ms. Butler, an abutter, the Conservation Commission is now saying that the property is within their jurisdiction and they will review the plans. He plans to follow up on this with Conservation tomorrow. He cautioned that it is not a good idea for one board to appeal another board’s decision. Mr. Murray noted that the Water Resource Committee worked very hard on reviewing the plans for this development and that “very little was incorporated into the conditions of this project. Is there something we can do to ‘buy’ time”? He is concerned what will happen if Conservation decides not to review the plans. If that is the case, the Committee and the Planning Board need to jointly review the plans. Mr. Agnew stated that he will contact Town Counsel to find the best way to proceed.

Mr. Danehey stated that he is the Selectmen’s liaison member on the Planning Board. He concurred that “an appeal is not a great choice”. He is concerned about the Town’s reservoir. Decisions on this development need to be made fairly quickly. Mr. Agnew stated that he would speak to the Conservation Agent and the Chairman of the Conservation Commission first and to see if they have a clear intent to move forward with the newly presented information. The next Conservation Commission meeting is on June 11, 2007. Mr. Agnew stated that the Selectmen, as the Water Commissioners, can also file a Request for Determination. Mr. Murray asked if an Notice of Intent (NOI) would allow us more time? No answer was recorded. Mr. Van Lenten, Water Resource Committee, stated that the Committee requested more information on this property. It
appears to him that the developer did not provide additional information to the Planning
Board. Mr. Reidy noted the huge difference between what the State decides and the local by-laws regarding Chapter 40B projects. Mr. Agnew believes that a Request for Determination may be a good idea in this case.

Mr. Harris asked if the Town ever had the opportunity to buy this piece of property? Mr. Van Lenten stated that this property was on Dr. Pipes’ Open Space list.

9. VOTE/ Amend Selectmen’s Policy 43-99, Section 10b/ Hawkers, Peddlers, Transient
Vendors

Mr. Murray made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to AMEND Selectmen’s Policy #43-99 Hawker Peddler’s Licenses, Section 10b to now read: “Vending to be allowed in residential areas between the hours of 12 Noon to 7 PM from Memorial Day to September 15th”. SECONDED by Mr. Norton. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (5-0)

10. ANNUAL APPOINTMENT PROCESS/ Conservation Commission

Mr. Danehey made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen APPOINT Stephen Young to the Conservation Commission for a three-year term. SECONDED by Mr. Reidy. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (5-0)

Mr. Murray made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen APPOINT Anthony Jones to the Conservation Commission for a three-year term. SECONDED by Mr. Norton. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (5-0)

Mr. Reidy made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen APPOINT Stephen Bjorklund to the Conservation Commission for a one-year term. SECONDED by Mr. Norton. No discussion. Reidy, Harris and Norton voted in favor of the motion. Danehey and Murray voted “no”. The motion carries (3-2).

Mr. Murray made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen APPOINT Scott Greenbaum to the Conservation Commission for a two-year term. SECONDED by Mr. Reidy. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (5-0)

The Selectmen thanked all the applicants for their interest in serving on the Conservation Commission.

11. OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Norton commended all the volunteers for their excellent work at Shipshape Day last Saturday. It was fantastic to see the response from Scituate residents.

Mr. Reidy stated that the Memorial Day events went very, very well. He thanked Veterans Agent Gary Carlo for organizing the parade and the presentation at Lawson Park. He noted the important words spoken about United States troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and how moving these words were. He noted the fine work done by Public Buildings and Grounds, especially Mr. Fran Lydon, and the Scituate Police Department.
Mr. Reidy thanked Mr. Agnew for following up on the bumps in the road on Tilden Road. Mr. Reidy was excited to report that after a year of anemometer readings it appears that Scituate is qualified to get a proposal moving forward for a wind turbine. This will go before the Annual Town Meeting. One issue being looked at is how far away the turbine needs to be from the residences. If the wind turbine is installed it will be a huge savings in electricity for the Town’s wastewater treatment plant. Discussion continued on whether the turbine and the Green Connection could share the land near the Treatment Plant. The Board concurred that this site should be continued to be explored for the turbine. Mr. Agnew asked Mr. Reidy to ask the experts how much square footage is required for the turbine.

Mr. Reidy thanked the Department of Public Works for fixing the potholes on Maple Street.

Mr. Murray received a complaint regarding the spraying of trees in the vicinity of Belltower Lane. Apparently Bartlett Tree was recently spraying the trees right over the sidewalk where the Gates Intermediate School children were walking. The sprayed liquid was dripping down onto the children. He asked Mr. Agnew to speak to the Grounds Division about this.

Discussion continued on the quorum by-law problem and the option at the State level. Mr. Agnew plans to make this an item for the next Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Danehey noted that in order for this to be effective, a recording of meetings must be made. If a member is absent from a meeting, they can then listen to the recording.

Mr. Danehey noted the recent forty-three page decision on Oceanside Village. He sees a great need for an affordable housing committee to be formed. He noted an affordable plan that was created in 2001, but was never implemented. He would like to see the Selectmen form a Committee that has “teeth”. The Town needs to “get to a number so we can try to avoid future Chapter 40B projects in Scituate.

Mr. Murray complimented Patriot Ledger reporter Jennifer Mann on her coverage of Scituate’s emergency response team. He noted volunteers Jennifer Sullivan, Nicole Harris and Nancy Ivas and thanked them and others for donating their time to a worthy cause.

Mr. Harris stated that the opening ceremonies for the new basketball courts will be held on June 15, 2007. He recently met with Jennifer Vitelli, Director of the Recreation Department, and Mike Breen, Highway Supervisor, to see if the Town could get the abutting skate park cleaned up. Mr. Agnew stated that unfortunately there is no money in the budget for a clean up effort right now. Discussion continued on surveillance cameras for the courts.

Mr. Al Bangert, ombudsman, spoke about the parking lot in North Scituate, which is built on top of the old tennis courts. Part of the Mitigation Agreement states that the Town
will operate, maintain and receive gross revenues from that lot and the parameters should be “in line” with other MBTA parking lots. Mr. Norton stated that he does not want the Town to be told to adhere to what the MBTA says. Mr. Bangert will look into agreements other towns have with the MBTA and report back to the Selectmen with a recommendation.

Mr. Bangert noted that the MBTA parking lot in Greenbush is built partially on Town land. The MBTA has a permanent easement to operate on that land. The Town parking lot in North Scituate (built by the MBTA) is partially built on the old Mobil station lot. “If we want to, we can switch properties, but the Mobil station lot is not necessarily ‘clean land’”. Mr. Bangert recommends a permanent easement on the Mobil station portion to be used just for a parking lot and not to choose swapping the land. He would like to consult with Town Counsel (John Giorgio) on this issue. Mr. Danehey asked why the Town would want an easement on the North Scituate property? Mr. Bangert stated that the Town would be operating a parking lot on that land and maintaining it. Mr. Agnew stated that Mr. Giorgio might even come up with another idea. Mr. Danehey cautioned that “this could be an albatross” or a “brown field”. The Town definitely does not want that land. Mr. Norton concurred.

12. CORRESPONDENCE – None

13. PENDING LITIGATION (Executive Session)

The Board of Selectmen entered into Executive Session via roll call at 9:55 PM and did not return to Regular Session this evening.

14. ADJOURNMENT

Regular Session adjourned at 9:55 PM.

BOARD OF SELECTMEN

Shawn Harris, Chairman

John F. Danehey

Richard W. Murray

Joseph P. Norton

Paul T. Reidy

Respectfully submitted,

Kimberley A. Donovan
Administrative Assistant