BOARD OF SELECTMEN

FEBRUARY 27, 2007

Present: Paul T. Reidy, Chairman; Shawn Harris, Richard W. Murray, James E. Pollard

Richard H. Agnew, Town Administrator

Press: Scituate Mariner

1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.

2. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/ WALK-IN PERIOD

Mr. Harris made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to ACCEPT the Agenda for February 27, 2007. SECONDED by Mr. Pollard. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0)

Walk-Ins – Ms. Jane Lepardo, Treasurer/ Collector, spoke about a Department of Revenue form regarding the Town’s dredging project for $332,000.

3. VOTE/ ONE-DAY WINE & MALT BEVERAGES LICENSE/ Choral Arts Society

Ms. Carmela Martell, Choral Arts Society, was present at tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Harris made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to GRANT a One-Day Wine & Malt Beverages License to the Choral Art Society for a fundraising event to be held on Saturday, March 24, 2007 from 7 PM to 9 PM at St. Mary’s Church Parish Center. SECONDED by Mr. Murray. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0)

4. VOTE/ EMERGENCY SEWER TIE-INS (2)/ 35 Park Avenue/ 88 Beaver Dam Road

35 Park Avenue

Ms. Jennifer Sullivan, Director of Public Health, and Mr. Frank Lynch, member of the Board of Health, were present at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Lynch stated that the groundwater at this address is very high. A Title 5 report shows “back up” and “ponding”. Mr. Lynch distributed photographs to the Board. The septic system is regularly pumped. The only alternative would be a tight tank. Mr. Harris asked if there are any homes on Park Avenue not tied into sewer? Ms. Sullivan stated that not all the homes are tied in, but they probably should be.

Mr. Murray made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to GRANT an Emergency Sewer Tie-In for 35 Park Avenue. SECONDED by Mr. Harris. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0)

88 Beaver Dam Road

Mr. Lynch stated that the perc test failed at this site and there is “back up” in the backyard, which is an unhealthy situation. The only alternative would be a tight tank. The Board of Health recommends an Emergency Sewer Tie-In for this home. The homeowner could install her own sewer line or connect with an existing line. Mr. Reidy asked if there already was a determination on sewer at this address? Mr. Lynch answered “no”. Mr. Paul Mirabito, Ross Engineering, was present for the applicant. Mr. Mirabito explained that the home abutting 88 Beaver Dam Road was granted an Emergency Sewer Tie-In in November 2006 and has a “spaghetti” line. Preliminary negotiations to tie into this neighbor’s line have failed thus far. Mr. Reidy wonders how this tie-in will go forward if the Board approves it and no agreement with the neigbhor can be reached? Mr. Mirabito stated that the resident (88 Beaver Dam Road) has two other choices: (1) another “spaghetti” line further on down the road or (2) run her own line. Mr. Reidy asked if there would be a problem with two “spaghetti” lines right next to each other? Mr. Mirabito answered “no, they are low pressure lines and the residents are responsible for maintaining them – the Town is not responsible for them”. Mr. Reidy asked if the street would need to be dug up again? Mr. Mirabito answered “no, it will be a trench patch”. Mr. Pollard asked when the work would be done? Mr. Mirabito answered “spring 2007”.

Mr. Murray made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to GRANT an Emergency Sewer Tie-In for 88 Beaver Dam Road. SECONDED by Mr. Harris. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0)

Mr. Reidy asked that the Board be kept apprised of the outcome of this request. Ms. Sullivan stated that the next step the applicant would take would be to submit their plans to the Department of Public Works. Discussion continued on private lines located in the public right of way.

5. DISCUSSION/ VOTE/ BOAR YARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Mr. Howard Kreutzberg, Chairman of the Waterways Commission; Mr. Peter Morin, Scituate Marine Park Committee and Harbormaster Mark Patterson were present at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Morin stated that tonight’s proposal is the culmination of many hours of work between the Waterways Commission, the Scituate Marine Park Committee, Mr. Agnew, etc. They have worked together to “implement and devise a strategy” for a lease for the boatyard for recreational and commercial vessels. The group
toured boatyards on the South Shore and interviewed operators in an effort to determine aspects of a boatyard, (1) essential to its operation, (2) non-essential items and (3) “wish
List” items. In addition, the group hired a boatyard consultant. Some of the principle areas of interest are parking and an adequate area for the servicing and repair of vessels. In addition, they want to make certain that the economic interests of the Town are covered, but it would not be necessary to make a profit from the boatyard, per se. The Request for Proposal and draft lease were forwarded to the Selectmen. Mr. Reidy noted that the lease outlines a ten-year lease with two, successive ten-year increments possible if the lessee builds a building. Is this economically feasible? Mr. Morin stated that people in the boatyard business have said that an initial ten-year lease is fine – the second and third terms make sense “bank-wise”. Mr. Harris asked if a bank would be troubled by the initial ten-year lease? The ten-year extensions would be the lessee’s decision, which the Town could also deny.

Mr. Pollard complimented Mr. Morin and the entire group on a job well done. He asked Mr. Morin to “highlight” some of the major points. Mr. Morin noted the following: the operator will be expected to (1) replace the existing building with a structure that will allow servicing and boat storage in the winter and (2) purchase of a travel lift (vessel removal/installation machine). Travel lifts cost approximately $230,000. It appears that a minimal investment of $1 million will be needed to improve the facility. In exchange, the Town will be giving the operator the exclusive use of a portion of the boatyard. The operator would also have use of 220 feet of the southern edge of the pier for his/her commercial boat business. The Harbormaster will designate ten slips for this use. Mr. Murray noted that these slips will allow the operator to “strike up business” with a boat dealer or other ancillary businesses. It will aid the operator’s financial model. “We want to set up a mutually advantageous system – a partnership” between the Town and the operator. The hoist can also be used for the recreational sailing fleet and the operator can charge for those services. Discussion continued on minimal rent and an annual percentage increase over a period of years. Mr. Harris asked about the square footage of a new building. Approximately 4,000 square feet, which is not very large for a building of this type. Mr. Morin continued by stating that the operator must use the same footprint of the existing building. A metal building probably makes the most sense, but it will be up to the lessee. They will be responsible for permitting and speaking to the Planning Board, etc. Mr. Murray concurred and noted that the structure will be subject to all the standard reviews and the Design Review Committee. The risk is on the lessee. Mr. Morin noted that if the lessee wants to expand the building’s footprint – they (lessee) will need to pursue that. Mr. Murray noted that the current boatyard lease expires in October 2008. The Town may decide to extend the current lease by six to twelve months. Mr. Reidy thanked the group for all the work they did on this project.

6. DISCUSSION/ VOTE/ DRIFTWAY COASTAL ACCESS PLAN (Segment 1) &
DRIFTWAY BOAT RAMP

Mr. Michael Clark, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, stated that initially only
one bid proposal came in for the Driftway Coastal Access Plan/ Segment 1. The Town
Administrator recommended that other proposals be solicited. Two other companies submitted bid proposals that were quite a bit higher. The initial company, Horisley Whitten bid $8,700. Mr. Clark stated that even though their bid is very low, Horisley Witten will “stick by it” and he recommends that the Selectmen award the contract to them. He reminded that the money must be spent on this project by the end of June 2007. The $8,700 is for the design only and then $245,000 will be spent to get it built. The construction aspect will be bid in April 2008 and built in May/June 2007. Hopefully, Community Preservation Act money will also be awarded for use on this project. Mr. Murray asked what would happen if the project was not awarded Community Preservation Act funds? Mr. Clark stated that adjustments would need to be made. Discussion continued on possible discrepancies in the bidding process. Mr. Clark stated that he spoke to Horisley Witten and they basically look at this project as a “resume builder”. Mr. Reidy asked if an attorney involved in a Chapter 40b project on Stockbridge Road worked for Horisley Witten? Mr. Clark did not think so – this is strictly an engineering firm. Mr. Harris asked that Mr. Clark ask Horisley Witten for a performance bond. Mr. Clark again stated the importance of keeping to the schedule on this project.

Mr. Murray made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen AUTHORIZE the Conservation Commission to move forward on the Driftway Coastal Access Plan (Segment 1) with Horisley Witten for $8,700. SECONDED by Mr. Pollard. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0)

Mr. Murray asked Mr. Clark for an update on the Driftway Boat Ramp. Mr. Clark stated that an item under the Community Preservation Act’s warrant article is for funds for design and permitting for a boat launching facility on the Driftway. It appears that it will take two to three years to permit. Discussions have been ongoing with interested residents. This Sunday a group will meet at the site to check on the dimensions of the “turnaround area” with resident’s boat and trailer. Money from a Conservation Commission storm water treatment grant will also be used in this area in an effort to get “something constructed for this summer”. Mr. Murray stated that he, Mark Stewart (Conservation Commission) and Craig Rosenquist (resident) met at this site in December 2006. Discussion continued on the placement of the large, concrete blocks in this area. Mr. Murray expressed concern that an understanding regarding the turnaround area be arrived at this coming weekend. “How soon can the blocks be moved ?” Mr. Clark stated that a “contractor owes us some work”. Work needs to be done on bank stabilization and re-grading. The Department of Public Works has offered some of their services – hopefully it will be done by May 2007. He does not foresee a need for cash to get this work done – rather “in kind” services. Mr. Murray asked where the cash came from to initially move the blocks? Mr. Clark understands that the blocks came from Stockbridge Road and were placed in their current location by FedCorp. Mr. Clark stated
that he had “no involvement” in the placement of the blocks. Additional blocks have
been stored at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and can be used in this area. Mr. Murray
would like May 1, 2007 to be used as a “target deadline” for the blocks to have been moved – “even earlier would be better”. He would not like to see this “dragged out once a plan has been approved”. Discussion continued on the correct type of equipment to move the blocks. Mr. Agnew stated that “when the plan is ready – we’ll get it done”. Mr. Reidy asked how about the size of Mr. Rosenquist’s boat? Mr. Rosenquist answered “seventeen feet” and it has a “single access” trailer. Everyone seemed to agree that the area should not service boats larger than seventeen feet. Mr. Murray asked to be briefed after Sunday’s meeting. Discussion continued on a possible, new location for the boat ramp located closer to James Landing. Mr. Murray stated that he is interested in getting the blocks moved because a turnaround space needs to be created as soon as possible. Mr. Clark stated that “the goal is May 1st”.

Mr. Murray stated that parking for the boat ramp worked fairly well last year. Using the area immediately outside the parking lot area for trailers has had its “pros and cons”. Mr. Clark stated that the bicycle trail, storm water piece and parking all need to be looked at together. We need to look at the “whole picture”. Mr. Reidy suggested a parking area in the vicinity of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Clark stated that the Plant might be outside the area of the State’s guidelines.

7. DISCUSSION/ VOTE/ FY2008 BUDGET & ATM/ STM ARTICLES –
- No new items.

8. VOTE/ DRAINLAYER LICENSE RENEWALS (4)

Mr. Harris made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to RENEW the following Drainlayer Licenses: C. J. Robinson, Dandel Construction, Mankewich Contracting, Pond Corporation. SECONDED by Mr. Murray. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0)

9. VOTE/ ABCC SEASONAL POPULATION

Mr. Harris made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen ESTIMATE the seasonal population of Scituate, as of July 10, 2007, to be 28,500. SECONDED by
Mr. Murray. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0)

10. DISCUSSION/ PICKET FENCE/ North Scituate/ A. Bangert

Mr. Bangert, MBTA Ombudsman, brought in a sample of steel fencing that the MBTA would like to install in North Scituate. 1,800 feet of fencing is suggested in an effort to “restore the nature of North Scituate” near the intersection of Country Way, Henry Turner Bailey and Gannett Road. The fence would be open at the bottom, but sealed via
black spray paint. Cohasset and Hingham have opted for the “old method” of fencing in which each section is welded. Scituate would like this same type of fencing, but the
MBTA does not support it because it will cost them (MBTA) an additional $2 million. The Towns and the MBTA are at somewhat of a standstill on this issue. The MBTA has told Mr. Bangert that if Scituate chooses the steel fence and it gets damaged, it can easily be replaced. He tried to get a sample of the “old method – authentic” type of fence from Cohasset, but was not able to. He suggested that if Scituate decides to go with the less expensive, steel fence – we could ask the MBTA to share some the savings they would realize with Scituate. Money for sidewalks in the area? Discussion continued on how many lineal feet of fencing, in total, has been requested by Scituate, Hingham and Cohasset. Mr. Bangert knows that Scituate’s 1,800 feet would cost $500,000 in “old method” fencing. Mr. Reidy thinks the Town should request the “old method”, welded type of fence. He also asked about the strangely configured sidewalk area in front of Hingham Institute for Savings. Mr. Bangert stated that the sidewalk there is not complete and will be fixed in the spring. Mr. Pollard noted that the Army Corps of Engineers “went to bat” for the historic districts of the towns. The Corps made the MBTA expend more money to make those areas turn out correctly. Mr. Reidy noted that if Scituate goes with the lesser fence, it will compromise the position of the Hingham and Cohasset. He hopes that the Army Corp will force the MBTA into the more expensive fencing for the towns.

Discussion continued on sidewalks from just beyond North Scituate center to Kathy’s Path on Gannett Road costing from $150,000 to $200,000. Mr. Bangert believes this to be a very important area for sidewalks and “if we can make this happen we have gotten more from the MBTA”. Mr. Reidy has heard a much higher estimate for sidewalks in that area. Mr. Bangert stated that the higher estimate came from the MBTA’s contractor, Cashman, and the project was dropped from the Streetscapes plan for that very reason. Mr. Murray asked if the North Scituate business owners had seen the fence sample? Mr. Bangert stated that “one of the more outspoken business owners said it looked fine”. Mr. Murray suggested that additional business owners view the sample and offer their opinion. He is concerned that if Scituate goes forward with the lower grade of fence that the MBTA will not come through with compensatory funds. Mr. Scott Roberts, Christopher Lane, asked if all three towns must have identical fencing? Mr. Bangert does not think so. Mr. Reidy suggested that Mr. Bangert continue negotiating with the MBTA and report back to the Board. Nothing will be decided until that time.

11. OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Bangert stated that the plans for the Roundabout have arrived at Town Hall and each Department is reviewing them. The same consultant, hired by the Town, who reviewed the 60% plans is now reviewing the latest plans. The consultant is making certain that “our wishes are adhered to”. Mr. Bangert will share the results of Department and
consultant review with the Board. Mr. Reidy wants to make certain that the Town’s traffic consultant reviews the plans. The Traffic Rules and Regulations
Committee still has concerns about Fire Department vehicles and School buses having turning radii problems in the roundabout. It appears that anything but a “straight truck” might have problems. Mr. Bangert stated that the consultant will go through the plans with a template to check for potential problems. Mr. Reidy stressed the importance of the traffic consultant documenting everything in writing. Mr. Bangert stated that once the roundabout is built, an assessment will be completed by the MBTA. “Mass Highway will not deal with a situation that does not work.” He further stated that in 1936, Mass Highway took a lot of land in this area to do a rotary at this site. They understand that this is a “failed intersection” with a high accident rate. The roundabout will be a bit smaller in size and an increased “green area” will be “new found land for the Greenbush village”. There will be an opportunity to put in a park containing a “welcome sign”, a Chief Justice Cushing monument, a memorial park, etc. Mass Highway will “own up” to the crosswalks. Within the roundabout, Mass Highway will maintain it, paint lines and plow it. Mr. Reidy stated that the Traffic Rules and Regulations Committee is still concerned about the circumference of the roundabout. Mr. Bangert stated that the maximum speed in the roundabout is 25 miles per hour. Mr. Reidy asked if it will be the same circumference as the Hingham rotary? Mr. Bangert was not certain. Mr. Murray asked if the roundabout is designed so that motorists will have to go all the way around it to get where they are going? Mr. Bangert answered “no”. Mr. Harris asked about Mass Highway’s involvement in the roundabout design? Did they put their templates on it? Mr. Bangert answered “yes, Mass Highway met with the Town’s engineer’s and Mr. Agnew and re-drew the map”. It will be a one-lane roundabout with a little more width for the trailing tires of some trucks. Mr. Reidy expressed concern with the elevation of the roadway near Herring Brook – could water go over the roadway? Mr. Bangert believes that issue has been resolved.

Discussion continued on Mr. Reidy’s receipt of a letter from FEMA regarding the flood plain issue. It is Mr. Bangert’s and CEI’s (consulting firm) understanding that if a project interferes with a river by removing or adding obstructions – the “project” must pay for a study of the area to be done. The MBTA would have the responsibility of doing an engineering study. If necessary, a new flood plain map will be created and if homes are in that flood plain, residents will be allowed, under a Federal program, to receive insurance at a reduced cost. Mr. Agnew believes that the previous Ombudsman spoke to all the businesses in the area about this matter a couple of years ago. Mr. Agnew and Mr. Bangert will follow up.

Discussion on water meters, irrigation systems and sewer.

Mr. Agnew stated that Article 22 was published using the following title “Senior Center”. There was not a chance to change the title to the revised “Scituate Senior/Community Center” title prior to publishing the warrant.

12. CORRESPONDENCE - None

13. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Harris made a MOTION that the Board of Selectmen VOTE to ADJOURN the meeting at 9:13 PM. SECONDED by Mr. Murray. No discussion. Unanimous vote. (4-0)

BOARD OF SELECTMEN

____________________________
Paul T. Reidy, Chairman

____________________________
Shawn Harris

____________________________
Richard W. Murray

____________________________
Joseph P. Norton

____________________________
James E. Pollard

Respectfully submitted,

Kimberley A. Donovan
Administrative Assistant