MINUTES

APRIL 26, 2007

Members Present: Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, Mrs. Chisholm, Mr. Duncan (Associate Member)

Others Present: Ms. Laura Harbottle, Town Planner; Atty. Ohrenberger and Atty. J. DeLisi of Ohrenberger Assocs., Mr. P. Mirabito and Mr. J. Donovan of Ross Engineering Co.; Mr. W. Harrington; Mr. J. Conway, Atty. W. Sullivan, Mr. D. Lonergan, Mr. J. Chaisson; Atty. G. Harris, Mr. W. Collins, Mr. K. Skeiber; Mr. R. Gaskell; Mr. M. McGowan (Design Review Committee).

See Sign-in List for Names of others present at this meeting.

ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Mr. Fenton Moved that the Agenda be accepted as written. Mrs. Chisholm Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

CONTINUATION OF THREE COMMON DRIVEWAY SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARINGS CHIEF JUSTICE CUSHING HIGHWAY. OWNER/APPLICANT: WILLIAM HARRINGTON, TRUSTEE SEVEN H. TRUST

The applicant, William Harrington, was present along with his attorneys William Ohrenberger and Jeffrey DeLisi of Ohrenberger Assocs., and his engineers, Paul Mirabito and J. Donovan of Ross Engineering Co. See sign-in list for names of others present at this meeting.

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “As per the Board’s request at our last hearing we did do a draft decision. I revised it to reflect the present composition of the Board since the election. One thing – on the middle driveway and we are amenable to whatever the Board feels on this – the middle driveway due to a definition of a common driveway - it is actually shorter and services two houses so it is technically an Administrative Site Plan. If the Board has some type of issue and they would rather treat this all as special permits we have done an alternative decision. So when you get to that you can decide that. It is less than 500’ so what I am saying is that procedurally we did it both ways. The new one is the same as the old one except that we put the present composition of the Board on the new one.”

Atty. Ohrenberger continued, “At the last time we had everyone here so we have everyone here tonight. At the prior meeting we anticipated that we would discuss the open issues and close the hearing and vote the set of Conditions. We are aware of the letter, which we received yesterday, from the Water Resources Study Committee (WRC). Paul Mirabito and J. Donovan will speak about that. The position that I will take at the outset is that we have answers for all those things. Our position is that this project is the exact same project, with no deviations or changes, from the project that was already approved (which I thought was very deliberate and thoroughly discussed). That has already been approved by this Board and it is under appeal by some of the abutters. What we have said from the outset is that Mr. Harrington was willing to accommodate and come up with the Flexible Open Space. For whatever reason that was not acceptable by the abutters. So we are going back to what we think is the next best thing. We still think that the Flexible Open Space Development is better. We have done what we have told the Board we would do. Secondly, this application has been extended pending the Flexible Open Space Development. It has been open for approximately a year and a half. It far predates the policies that the Selectmen have. Frankly, the report is for what it is worth. So if you want to discuss that issue we are at your pleasure. We are ready to answer any questions.”

Mr. Walter said, “From my perspective I think we should discuss the memo (memo from the Water Resources Committee) because a lot of time and effort went into that memo. We are talking about this particular project – the Common Driveway project as opposed to the previously approved Flexible Open Space. I agree with you that it is essentially the same other than the three curb cuts rather than one. From the Board – is there anything else you want to discuss?”

Mr. Fenton said, “I understand Mr. Ohrenberger’s position and I think he makes a fair case but I am with you that the Water Resource Committee (WRC) was put in place by the Selectmen for a reason. I think the memo was trying not to extend the scope. I think we should hear some discussion.”

Mr. Mirabito gave the Board a letter in response to the issues raised by the WRC in their April 25th letter. See file for details. He said, “This is a response to the April 25th letter from the WRC. I will have J. Donovan address some of the issues as he is more familiar with them than I.”

Mr. J. Rosen, WRC Chairman, joined the meeting at this point and he said, “Our memo speaks for itself. I do want to say that it was strongly reviewed by the WRC we have really strong feelings about it.”

Mr. Mirabito said, “The Planning Board has approved a Flexible Open Space Development plan. That plan is the same as the Common Driveway plan. The Common Driveway plan has three driveway openings on Rte. 3A. The Flexible Open Space has one. We have told the Board that if the Common Driveway is proposed the applicant has agreed to put all the Conditions that were part of the approval of the Flexible Open Space onto the Common Driveway application as well. By saying that if the Common Driveway plan is approved tonight it will be one hundred percent identical to the Flexible Open Space Development plan. I also want to say that three or four weeks ago you received a letter from one of the members of the Water Resource Committee who put together some comments. We also responded to the Board. You have that letter. Many of the comments in the letter that we received yesterday are identical. So what I want to do this is to go through this and explain to the Board why we feel that we comply with all your applicable Rules & Regulations for this project and also with respect to the protection of the surface water supply. The Town of Scituate has a Water Resource Protection District Zoning Bylaw. This site falls within that zoning district and because it does we did incorporate into the design all the Rules & Regulations that apply as to what we can do and not do in this particular zoning district. These regulations go to the design, the number of bedrooms that you can have on the site, as well as the grading and how you treat the stormwater drainage. It has all been reviewed by the Planning Board’s professional engineer and it meets all the BMP regulations as set forth by the Commonwealth and based on that the Flexible Open Space Development plan was approved. Once more – this plan is identical in design to the Flexible Open Space. With that I would like to start in with the letter.” [Mr. Mirabito read his letter aloud. See file for a copy of this letter.]

Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Mirabito, “On number 2 the Conservation Commission’s concerns regarding the delineation – did they do that with a consultant or how did they do that?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “The applicant hired a consultant, a highly respected consultant, and what he did was to walk the site the entire site. Based on that we filed an ANRAD application. The purpose of that application is to establish the resource area, any resource areas that may or may not be on the site. An application was duly submitted to DEP and the Conservation Commission. This is the delineated wetland and this is the edge of the property. The proposed work is more than 100 feet from the wetland. There is a comment that they would like to see the Conservation Commission establish a much larger buffer zone. It can’t happen for the simple reason that the ANRAD establishes what resource areas are on the site. The only way they can increase the buffer zone is if we file an application with the Commission. The only reason we would file an application with the Conservation Commission is if we do work within 100’ of this wetland line then we are required to file an application with the Commission. Because we are not doing any work within 100’ of the Commission’s line no action on the part of the Commission is required. Again, unless it is through the Commission that 200’ buffer zone cannot be extended on any type of project.”

Mr. Fenton said, “Let me ask for clarification – there is no other way to trigger that.”

Mr. Limbacher replied, “It is triggered by an ANRAD filing. If they were within the 100’ they could at their discretion extend it up to 200’. Nothing gets triggered unless you are working within 100’.” Mr. Fenton asked, “So the Planning Board can’t ask them to consider the 200’ buffer on this?” Mr. Walter said, “Right now the Conservation Commission has no jurisdiction because they are not doing any work within the 100’ buffer.” In response to a question about measurements Mr. Mirabito replied, “It is 105’ or 106’ – just over the 100’.”

Mr. Mirabito continued to read aloud his letter. Mr. Walter asked, “Could you expand upon that and explain how you are treating the storm water.” Mr. Mirabito replied, “One of the things that we are supposed to do is to collect the water and trap the solids, if you will, prior to going off site. The other thing is that we have a stormwater basin that holds the water back and retains it for a certain amount of time so that the peak runoff does not increase. We also do that. The Zoning Bylaw says that we should - with any runoff the discharge to existing onsite vegetation for surface infiltration – that is also being done here by the fact that we have 40% open space by this design. In addition we have stormceptor units. Those stormceptors are being placed around the site. That is a filtering system within the catch basins and manholes that is going to collect additional. When we do the BMP’s we are supposed to be at at least 80% removal. Correct me if I am wrong, but we have 94% which is very high. So we have exceeded that. This has all been reviewed by Dave Nyman. We have complied with the BMP’s. We did that. There have been some changes made to accommodate some of his review comments. Those were made and he reviewed them.”

Mr. Mirabito continued to read aloud his letter starting at #6. He said, “There is a well on the down hill side of Old Forge Road and this is clearly within a 500’ radius of that.”

Mr. Walter asked about the septic system and treatment. Mr. Mirabito replied, “We have not proposed treatment because it is not required. Again, the leaching area is 1100’ away from the surface water. If this was considered a reservoir under Title 5, which it isn’t, we would have to have the leaching area at least 400’ away. Again, the closest part of this area is 1100’ away.”

Mr. Mirabito continued to read his letter starting at #7. Mr. Duncan asked, “On the septic system will you be pumping up hill from the houses? What back up systems do you have for a power failure and how long a duration would they last?” Mr. Mirabito said, “Yes. When we design a system even if it is just for a single family home when it is a pump system we have to provide and insure that there is at least one day storage in the tank in the event that you lose power. There is a series of tanks for the storage of that water. This is a requirement under Title 5 state regulations as well as the Board of Health. We meet the Health regulations.” Mr. Duncan asked, “In an extraordinary situation like a hurricane when power is out for days and streets are essentially blocked other than for emergency vehicles – would septic pumping companies be considered emergency in that type of a situation. Would they be allowed out in those types of circumstances? I am just concerned about a pro-longed power outage in a storm.” Mr. Mirabito replied, The power outages back in the early 1990’s were pretty bad. Things have gotten a lot better. Often there will be a backup generator operated by propane gas or natural gas. That is something that could be incorporated in the septic system.” Mr. Duncan said, “This is such a sensitive area.”

Atty. Ohrenberger added, “If that is the case and there is no power - when you septic tank reaches capacity does it flow out?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “What would happen – there is some storage between the house and the tank in the pump chamber – if they lost power for 2 or 3 days….” Atty. Ohrenberger interjected, “I guess the question is will it flow into the water supply?” Mr. Mirabito replied, ‘No.” Mr. Walter said, “I guess it would go back to the house.” Mr. Mirabito replied, ‘Yes, It is a closed system.”

Mr. Mirabito continued to read his letter starting at #10. Mr. Mirabito said, “I would also like to add that during our presentation on the Flexible Open Space we had submitted a plan to the Board which shows the actual topographical contours on the properties adjacent to the site along Stearns Road. These were based on an actual survey done for a septic system upgrade for homes along that road. The purpose of that plan was to show to the Planning Board that based upon the comments and statements made by the abutters during the public hearing process it is a fact that the water from the site does not flow onto abutting properties. In fact there would be a benefit proposed to the property here. [Mr. Mirabito showed the Board a plan and showed the Board the location of a swale and the direction of the flow.] This was the plan that was based upon actual topographic survey. What it shows is that the water from these lots some of it actually comes onto our property. These are the flow directions. The water comes from the top of the hill down here. This is the Ryan property (the last house on Stearns Road). The yellow line is our property. What we proposed when it was approved under the Flexible Open Space was that there would be a swale, if it is needed, on our property adjacent to this last lot. If any water was to come onto this property from adjacent properties it would go this way - if any water was to go in this direction, which it won’t, it would be picked up by the swale and taken into riprap. We also offered to the property owner here (as shown in videos) - this lot here has a substantial amount of water on it – which we indicated on this plan – the water coming on the upper levels of his lot is clearly coming from the lots above him on Stearns Road. We also offered to put in a swale along this portion of that property so all the water coming off the hill would be collected and directed in this area here and not going to their yards. Again, this is the area where they are talking about the existence of a tributary. It simply is not there. If it was we would have shown that and we would have taken measures to accommodate it in the design of the project.”

Mr. Mirabito continued to read his letter. See Page 3 of his letter which was a response to the WRC’s abbreviated summary of the Zoning Bylaws pertinent to the Common Driveway Special Permit.

The Chair thanked Mr. Mirabito and asked for comments/questions from the Board regarding the memo from the WRC and Mr. Mirabito’s response.

Mr. Fenton said, “I will go back to the memo. I will put on the table what I think are areas of judgment. They did a good job of outlining where the black and white stuff is. If there is any grey left it might fall under these questions. Can we make a request that the Conservation Commission open a new hearing?”

Mr. Limbacher replied, “No. Let me suggest that we start with #1, #2, #3 of the WRC memo and not cherry pick through the memo.”

Mr. Fenton replied, “So redrawing the plans to show water bodies. I think that outlying the wetland is more important to me. That strikes me as most critical.” Mr. Limbacher said, “My take on that one is that every town board involved with the review of this project should be reminded of its proximity to the water supply. I would be hard pressed to tell you that there isn’t a board in town that is not familiar with this piece of property and knows exactly where it is.”

Mr. Fenton said, “Number 2 – the Conservation Commission – so is it in our jurisdiction to make such a request? There has been an assertion that there is a disparity between the 2004 and 2002 wetland lines? That would be a basis for asking for that.” Mr. Mirabito replied, “Any time there is a line that is over 3 years old the Commission requires the site to be reviewed. This was reviewed in 2004 which was after the 2002 plan. I explained the reason for the discrepancy. Again that was 5 years ago. Having said that we had to go out in 2004 and have the whole site reviewed anyway. It was walked by the Commission’s consultant. What happens is that you can see from the plan that the wetland line runs parallel with the edge of the water. We had on our plan a line running parallel to the water and then it went straight up the hill (wetlands zone 2). That line going up the hill never had wetland flags associated with it. The wetland flags were on the portion of the line which was parallel to the water. It was a drafting error but that is the old one for the Ryan septic system which we did for the previous owner. Again, In 2004 (2 years after that was done) we went out and had the whole site looked at and re-flagged and that is the current line and it is blessed by the Conservation Commission. Just so you know – what that application did was to establish the resource areas that either are or are not on the property. If we were doing work within 100’ we would have to file a notice with the Commission. That is the only time that they would be able to increase the buffer.

It is only the Commission that has that jurisdiction.” Mr. Fenton said, “That being #3 – to have ConCom extend the buffer and I am accepting that as asked and answered.”

Mr. Fenton continued, “Number 4 – they recommend that you engage a hydrogeologist but you are saying that that is not required. My question is – can it be requested and do we think it is worthy? Remember the whole groundwater question and the property downsteam of the detention basin. Dave Nyman said it was not his expertise and so I will leave that open. The last two (#5 and #6) fall into the category of the notion of a tributary. I find myself compelled by your description Mr. Mirabito of how water flows, and why, standing water, moving water, and water from the adjacent properties. If I understood correctly one of the assertions was that with this subdivision we may be creating that tributary by the outflow of the basin. Again, I may be wrong. Mr. Rosen is that so? Please clarify that. If so, is there some jurisdictional issue on that? The outflow of the detention basin at times – is it an intermittent flow into the watershed? Is more examination of that needed?” Mr. Walter said, “I did not take it that way but we will find out in a minute.”

Mr. Mirabito responded, “Two things - the outflow of the basin will not meet the definition of a tributary. A tributary would either have to be running parallel to the contours or up and down the hill. Again there is nothing there. That was looked at by the Commission’s consultant. We told him what our proposed design was and noted the basin at the bottom. If he saw a tributary he would have taken into account the definition of a tributary and there is no evidence of one out there whatsoever. The other thing that I would like to say – go back to #4 when they talk about engaging a hydrogeologist. They say that due to the immense importance of this site to the public water supply – they are coming from the point of view that this is close to the water supply. Again, you have to take into account the numerous regulations from the 80’s, 90’s, and early 2000’s that we have complied with and are required to comply with. They provide more protection than the Zoning Bylaw does. As I mentioned earlier, none of the homes are in the groundwater. We have 40% open space. We have clearly paid attention to the water supply. If you look at the subdivision west of us (Old Forge Road subdivision built in the late 60’s or early 70’s) it has no stormwater management on it, their septic systems are in the groundwater, and everything is going right into the water supply. When these septic systems for existing homes are upgraded they don’t have to provide treatment because they are existing systems. They don’t have to comply with the regulations that we would.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I interpreted #5 slightly different. My interpretation of #5 is saying that the channeling is coming adjacent to the property on the Ryan side and not from the basin. If you look at the contours you can see where that would be.” Mr. Fenton said, “Got it.”

Mr. Limbacher continued, “It talks about flowing through the site from abutting property. I will ask Jeff by what he means about coming through the property.”

Mr. Rosen said, “First of all I would like to thank Mr. Mirabito. That was very educational and I thought he did a very thorough job. The WRC, as you know, came into this very late because it was just formed a short while ago. Our major concern is to protect the water resource for all the citizens of the town. It would be very difficult to identify a more sensitive area in town and because of that we believe that there are questions that remain. In reviewing the materials we do not feel that these questions have been resolved so we would like to intercede to see that those issues are resolved. Specifically one of our biggest concerns has to do with the flagging of the property – how much of it has been done? When has it been done? Is it accurate? From our perspective and from Mr. Mirabito’s presentation an awful lot depends on whether the wetlands have been flagged properly. Is it all outside that 100’ or not? If the flagging has not been done accurately, there may be some uncertainty about it so some of the design may be encroaching not on the wetlands as they are flagged but on the wetlands that are actually there. So we feel that it is very, very important that as we proceed with this we have some level of certainty. In review of the documents presented to the Conservation Commission, the documents that were made available indicated that the most recent walks that were done were very, very minimal and that the wetland siting was done with few flags. So those changes that occurred with the upgrade from 2002 wetland flagging to the 2004 wetland flagging was done based on what may be considered inadequate flagging and walking of the property. We feel that given the climate of the last years and the sensitivity of the area, and as Mr. Mirabito has said tonight, the intent of the developer is to do the right thing. I think we are saying the same thing. We just feel that there are some uncertainties that need some more resolution. The entire design is dependent on that land characterization and depends not only on the wetlands but on the types of soils that are there. At one situation, as I understand it, there was land designated as meadows versus forests and there is some question about that. A number of people have said that since the flagging was done more than a year ago it is probably due for a repeat and clarification. So we feel that that would be an important thing to do. We also feel that it is important for the town. Again, I realize that we are coming in late to the game, and I will apologize for that and say that in the future we will try to be more pro-active. The question here is not one of requirement but because of where it is (and lets lay it out the way it is) – this is the town’s surface water supply for the entire town so if there are any questions or problems with the way this has been designed and laid out we are talking about a threat to the drinking water supply for the entire town. It is not only the surface water supply but as Mr. Mirabito said, there are wellheads in the area as well. It is an enormous risk and if you look at it from a risk analysis perspective there is an enormous risk here and I think that we should go the extra yard to make sure that we mitigate it as best we possibly can. So we would like to be discussing not so much the requirements – I understand from the developer’s perspective that that is important because time is money and there is a big investment to be made. On the other hand, in this particular plan, I think that requirements versus options should be looked at very carefully. The Planning Board should adopt some options especially with the last item in our memo – if you have the authority to ask for additional information the WRC is encouraging you to please do so to insure that the issues that are there are addressed.”

Mr. Rosen continued, “Let me address a couple of the specific questions. I have to tell you that I did not do a detailed review of this. Mr. Van Lenten did as he is familiar with the area. My understanding is that some of the abutters have identified a tributary. There is a film out there, but I have not actually seen it, that shows you where the water is flowing over the surface. There are indications that the topography of the land does indicate with sediment and channels that there is significant water running through there. I think that especially since the developer has already addressed this issue and has plans to address it I don’t know why that wasn’t done. I think there are plans and there are ways of mitigating this. That should be looked at. We should get somebody out that who is a specialist who can walk the land to especially address this question. We should have the abutters point to where the potential tributary runs. We should get somebody out there who knows what he is talking about. If it is not there then we carry on. If it is there then the plans that have been put in place should be ruled out. Again, I feel pretty strongly that the developer means to do the right thing here and we should make sure that we give him the opportunity to do it. Again, I apologize that I can’t point exactly on the map to show where that is but I do think that if you look at the vectors that are drawn on that map, it is clear that along that border between the developer’s property and the property just above that, there are certainly indications of vectors there where the water is flowing. It looks like it would turn into a channel of some kind. I am not an expert in the area but I think we should get that information addressed. With that I will take any questions.”

Mrs. Chisholm asked, “Do you believe that the flagged area is off? Have you been out there?” Mr. Rosen said, “I have not been out there but Mr. Van Lenten has been out there and he has some questions about it simply because of the vegetation types that are out there. There are some pretty standard vegetation types that indicate wetlands. According to his review those are noted on the property outside what is flagged as a wetland.”

Mrs. Chisholm asked Mr. Mirabito, “You said that you are approximately 105 to 108 feet away. If that line is off by ten feet you could be in the wetland.” Mr. Mirabito replied, “It is not off and I will tell you why. The applicant’s role is to engage a professional botanist, which we did do, to go out and walk the entire site, which he did. Then he prepares a report and he flags the wetlands. We do a field survey and put them on the plan. This is all spelled out in the Wetlands Protection Act. There are very specific procedures to follow. We then file an application with the Conservation Commission and all the abutters are notified and a public hearing is held. Prior to the public hearing the applicant had to pay another substantial fee to the Conservation Commission for their consultant to walk the property. I was with him. My role was to assure that he was within the property. He started out here and he walked the entire site. He was not looking just for wetlands. He was looking for any and all resource areas that are under the Wetlands Protection Act including tributaries, vernal pools, ponds, brooks, whatever. The only resource area he found under the Wetland Protection Act is shown. There are no other resources on the site. We followed all the proper procedures. The Commission reviewed his report and based upon that they issued the final report. Once that is done it is locked in place. That is why I said in my earlier presentation that we followed all the proper procedures. If there was a tributary it was not see by us, by our consultant or the town’s consultant. The applicant does want to protect the water supply. There are regulations that we have to follow. We put the design on a plan and then it is reviewed by their professional engineer who is well versed in this area of the town and the Town of Scituate. He has been working for the Board for several years. Our design in some cases exceeds the requirements and the regulations, specifically in the Water Resource Protection District and the wellhead protection area, relative to both the groundwater and the surface water supply. These issues have come up and up and we have addressed them. We have been working on this for over two years now. We do meet all the requirements and we do protect the groundwater supply and surface supply as we are required to do.”

Mrs. Chisholm asked, ‘How long did it take to flag the wetlands?” Mr. Mirabito described how the flagging was done and reviewed by the Conservation Comm. He said that the botanist was highly respected by DEP. Mrs. Chisholm asked, “Can we come back and re-flag it?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “It has been done and it is good for three years otherwise it could go on and on and on. The reason the State does that is because if you are doing a project it makes sense to know what the resource areas are. It can’t be a moving target.” Mr. Mirabito continued to discuss the State procedure under the Wetland Protection Act.

Mr. Rosen read aloud sections from the first memo from the WRC regarding the review of the wetlands and he said, “This is all based on documentation and it can all be dredged back up and we can look at it together.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “To summarize this. We have a government. Now I am being told that it does not matter what the Conservation Commission says and they have already made a decision; it doesn’t matter what the Conservation Commission consultant says; it does not matter what the Planning Board consultant says; it does not matter what our registered professional engineer says. In spite all of that we are supposed to go back and look at it again. Mr. Van Lenten has been a vocal opponent of this project. I did not want to get into that. We have elected and appointed officials with statutory authority. My client has paid for two sets of consulting engineers for the town and they all agreed. Are you saying that the other town boards are not competent?”

[It was noted that the Public Hearing on 80 Front Street was supposed to begin at 8:00 P.M. That Hearing will be postponed until the discussion on this project is finished.]

Mr. Mirabito said, “There is nothing in the letters that we have received that I have seen that points specifically to some regulation in the bylaw that we have not met. Having said that, this project is more in compliance and more so in some respect with all the applicable rules and regulations. This has been done properly since day 1. We certainly know the rules and regulations and our plan complies with those rules and regulations. If it doesn’t you can’t approve it. If it didn’t you would not have approved the Flexible Open Space. This does not stop here. When you go to get a mortgage some of the title insurance companies will make sure that the plan complies with the rules and regulations. It goes beyond this board as well.”

Mr. Limbacher read aloud #6 (Project Tributaries, man-made, with Zoning Bylaw 510.5) of the WRC letter and asked Mr. Rosen to comment. Mr. Rosen replied, “My point is if the wetlands are not flagged properly then you may be in the non-disturbance area.” Mr. Limbacher said, “So #6 is really a variation of #5.” Mr. Fenton said, “Yes, it amplifies and #5 requires that you accept it as a tributary. I find myself in a position of - we have had testimony that up to now I have excepted. I had accepted the wetland flagging because both our and their consultant made the case. Then the thing around the tributary – I had accepted it as intermittent rainfall. Those are the two shaky things for me. There is new evidence that I had been unaware of up to this point in the conversation. I am looking to hear from my co-board members as to where you are on this. Is there something I should think about the wetlands flagging or about this being a tributary versus a lot of wet land. I thought you guys were offering to even remedy some of the backyard flooding with a swale. You did and I liked that as a notion. I thought that was the solution. Is this new and different?”

Mr. Duncan said, “I think it does raise concerns – the flagging. As you suggested - perhaps a group could sit down and look at the existing documentation. I did follow the Minutes even though I was not a member of this committee and the issue did come up that the Planning Board consultant was not a hydrologist. Hydrology is certainly a significant issue on property going into our water supply. I would strongly recommend that a hydrological survey of the land be done. Then perhaps a couple of people from this committee could sit down with the WRC , with Mr. Mirabito, and somebody from Conservation to look at the documentation and at the next meeting put this issue to rest.”

Mrs. Chisholm said, “Actually that has been discussed as a possible Condition.” Mr. Limbacher said, “The concept of the hydrologist was to not address surface water but groundwater. That is apples and oranges.”

Mr. Fenton said, “So there are kind of three piles. I am just trying to make this simple so we can get at it. There is: wetland flagging, tributary, notion of a hydrogeologist to talk about

groundwater.”

Mr. Walter said, “I would like to share my thoughts on it. As I see it the wetland flagging is within the three year window and it was done by a wetland botanist and clarified and agreed to by the town’s own consultants. I find it hard to come up with a reason to have that done again (except that someone may think it is wrong). As far as the tributary – we did see photos that were taken last May when we had huge rain storm with five days of rain. Lastly, with the hydrologist (and I understand that the issue is groundwater related), all the work they are doing is outside of the groundwater. As I see it the groundwater itself is not really being disturbed. What we are doing is that we are taking care of and actually conditioning the surface water that may interact with any surfaces and become contaminated prior going to the detention basin. That is where I sit right now. I have not heard enough evidence to say that we really need to put the breaks on here.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I need to point out that we have had multiple consultants look at it. I don’t get a warm sense that if I had a third person or a fourth person out there that I would find something that is appreciably different with the wetland flagging. I think the swale comes back up and addresses what was clearly an abnormal storm last May. We had a hundred year storm three days in a week. If we have that rain the swales will address that. The third point is that now we are directing all the flow down and we are providing treatment for it (the surface water). Your last point is right on. To the extent that the only place that I could say there could possibly be an impact on the groundwater is with infiltration and I think there is a very small area of infiltration. All the structures and everything else are above groundwater so it is not disturbing the groundwater.”

Mr. Walter said, “Of all the surrounding roads in the neighborhood – they currently have and will have a greater effect on our drinking water than this property will have.” Mr. Limbacher said, “Yes, and just look at that culvert at the end of the road that comes down hill and runs right into the water. I think you have a greater impact there than with this.”

Mr. Duncan said, “On those issues – if you look at the Scituate Water Study Committee Report that was done in 2004 it clearly flags this area as a very sensitive area. It also catalogues the fact that Tack Factory Pond already has runoff issues certainly from the road, from properties right here. To not take every precaution with our water supply – I would be very nervous about that - if three or four years after this development is in place there are major issues. We will have 15 houses that will be using fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides etc. and these things are all going to one way or another make their way into the water supply. I know that the bylaws allow household uses but they are still lethal and they are still toxic. I just think we need to take every precaution. I think the hydrological issue is still significant and should be considered. I don’t see any disadvantage in doing something like that. Again, I think a voluntary group could do it even if we do it outside of this committee – just look at the existing documentation of the wetlands just to make sure that it is all accurate. I think that the hydrological issue really needs to be considered.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “It is good to have interested citizens working together but I certainly don’t want them out there flagging the wetlands.” Mr. Duncan said, “I mean authorized by this committee – a group of people who would just look at the existing documentation because there still seems to be some doubt amongst ourselves and some of the abutters. I talked with some of the abutters. There is concern on the part of the abutters so we owe it to them and ourselves to put that to rest. I am not saying to bring in somebody to do it but to look at the existing documentation that the experts have already addressed.”

Mr. Walter said, “What I would like to do is – we have had a lot of good discussion here – I am sure there are comments from the audience and I do want to hear them. In the interest of time I don’t want to echo what has been discussed. I don’t want to stifle anyone opinions.”

Atty. Adam Brodsky said he represented Howard Szklut and several of the other neighbors. He said, “There are several outstanding items and I will get to those in a moment. Just briefly to respond to Mr. Mirabito’s letter which I have not had a chance to look at. He says that the project complies to Title 5 but unless I am mistaken there has not been an application to the Board of Health approving the specific system. [Atty. Brodsky read a 2005 comment from the Health Agent.] So there has been no approval by the Board of Health saying that the proposed system as designed meets the requirements of the Board of Health. That is an outstanding issue. With respect to wetlands, I actually agree that the Planning Board does not have jurisdiction to address wetland issues. That is before the Conservation Commission. However, if the wetland line changes what would happen would be that it would go to the Conservation Commission and a new line would be approved then these plans would have to be changed and the applicant will have to come back to the Planning Board with some sort of an amendment. So I am suggesting that in order to save time it would make sense for you continue the hearing for a reasonable period of time to allow these issues to be fleshed out. There are real issues. There are wetland issues out there that may not have been delineated. I know that Mrs. Butler has hired a wetlands scientist to review her property. There has been some suggestion that the flags have been changing. In fact there are different kinds of wetlands. What we are talking about are buffer zones, vegetated wetlands, ponds. Mr. Van Lenten also said that there are wetlands that are not protected under the Wetlands Protection Act but under the local bylaw. I think there is a regulatory vehicle to address that issue. If you think the line is not accurate, Mrs. Butler or another interested party could ask for a Request for Determination of Applicability on Mr. Harrington’s property. That would raise the issue formally in terms of Conservation. I am not suggesting that you folks have any jurisdiction with the wetlands. All I am saying is that it may make sense for you to hold off your consideration for now until that issue is resolved. With respect to the hydrologist, I think that the Board may be misunderstanding that issue. I believed that issue was first raised at the September 28, 2006 meeting. [Atty. Brodsky referred to the minutes of Sept. 28th regarding Mrs. Butler’s property. See file.] Mr. Nyman said flat out that he was not a hydrologist and that he could not answer that question. We asked at prior hearings that that issue be addressed. I don’t think the applicant has hired a hydrologist or hydrogeologist to address that issue and that needs to be resolved.”

Atty. Brodsky continued, “I will go through my other issues. There needs to be a common driveway agreement for maintenance of the drainage. There needs to be a surety agreement with respect to the driveway and the drainage and I don’t know if that has been submitted to the Board. Thirdly, Edwards & Kelsey, the town’s own traffic consultant, recommended that the applicant prepare a plan that shows the sight triangles in the areas of clearing and grading required to meet the State sight distances. I don’t think that plan was ever prepared. I don’t think the Planning Board knows what trees are going to be taken down. One of the purposes of the Common Driveway Bylaw 780.7A is to minimize removal of vegetation and preserve existing trees. You don’t have a plan that shows what trees are coming down or what are the correct sight lines so you can’t make any determination as to whether or not the project meets that purpose in the bylaw. We discussed briefly the groundwater issue and that is an outstanding issue. I know that Traffic Rules & Regulations recommended that the developer obtain curb cuts prior to your approval and as far as I know the applicant hasn’t done that. I have reviewed the files and I could not locate anything in the file that the Fire Dept. has actually signed off on the common driveway. That raises the issue since the Town Meeting did not approve the new fire station on Rte. 3A. Lastly, and these are more substantive issues, one of the purposes of the bylaw is to the number of access points on public roads (780.2). I think the Planning Board has a problem. You have already granted the Flexible Open Space Development Special Permit which provides for one access to a public road. Their common driveway applications are now proposing three access points. Obviously three access points are greater than one access point. I don’t see how this Planning Board can approve this Special Permit due to the fact that you have already approved the Flexible Open Space Development Special Permit which is better with respect to that. You can’t meet that purpose and standard in the Bylaw. You have a procedural problem. Lastly in 780.2 it also says that the purpose of the bylaw is to protective wetlands and sensitive natural areas from disturbance. I think that it is critical to defer the issuance of a final decision and closing the hearing and give the abutters and the other interested parties the opportunity to resolve the wetland issues. Again, you are not going to be able to make any determination that this project meets that purpose in the Common Driveway Bylaw. So those are very quickly my concerns.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “At the outset Mr. Mirabito didn’t say that the septic was approved but that it was designed to meet Title 5. Secondly, I could go through each and every one of those points but you may all concur that those were exactly all the points were brought and discussed and resolved in the last hearing. Mr. Harrington has spent an enormous amount of time, money, and energy to bring in the best project and by virtue of Mr. Brodsky’s client appealing this – this is our second time and we are saying that they created their own problem. Mr. Harrington has gone out of his way to do the best thing and unfortunately Mr. Brodsky’s clients don’t think it is so. I don’t think Mr. Harrington, in light of all that we have done here, should be stuck in a Catch 22 situation which has actually been caused by the people who have appealed the Special Permit.”

Atty. Brodsky said, “If, in fact, the common driveway agreement has been filed all you have to do is to indicate that to us and I will take that off the list. These are all outstanding items and I have no evidence that these items have been addressed. These issues were raised but they have not been addressed. If, in fact, the surety agreement is done, then great. Again, we have raised these issues but there has been no response.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, ‘First of all, my client has responded to what the Board has requested and not to a third party’s request. If you look at the existing decisions there are surety provisions in them. All of these are extremely ministerial in nature and they have been addressed.”

Mr. Fenton said, “It strikes me, Mr. Brodsky, that many of those are fair questions and we have addressed them in the Conditions in the first round. They are all completely relevant, I am not saying that they are not. Here is what I feel it boils down to - we have moved ourselves in this decision to wanting to satisfy everybody in the game. I would hope that the abutters are less satisfied with this version because it is not as good as design. I know that the abutters still have understandable concerns. The people who just don’t want anything in their backyards – that is not a reasonable outcome. We all recognize that people have a right to develop their property, just as where many of us live right now was developed years ago with a lower standard of performance. Anyone who thinks this should not happen just because they don’t like it - that is not reasonable. There are fair concerns about specific issues particularly this one about the water table. That technically is the one least answered. I am remembering the September meeting and I remember Dave Nyman saying that he was not a hydrogeologist so he did not have the technical expertise. That is an open question that I see is a fair concern on the part of the abutters. Secondly, we have an applicant, who indeed and I agree brought us previously a preferred design. I would agree that the Board and the applicant liked the Flexible Open Space Development. That is the one we worked on and yet we cannot move ahead on that. I would go a step further to say that I would love to resolve that one and I would love to resolve the abutters’ questions. I don’t know if there is a procedural way to do this. I would love everybody to come to the table. Is there a place in between in this triangle where everybody gets happy and we resolve the outstanding question about groundwater - where the water is coming from and where it goes. We, the Board, recognize that in doing that we are going to get the better application and that is the Flexible Open Space. That will be the one that we would be working on. The applicant says ‘I am willing to help resolve those questions because I also want to end up back there because what I will get out of the deal is no more delays due to litigation if we can satisfactorily resolve that open question’. Did I say that in a clear enough way? To me it sounds like there are three specific outcomes that could get us to a place where each of the entities involved (the Board, the applicant, the abutters) all end up happier than where we are right now. Is there a procedural path for that anybody can figure?”

Atty Ohrenberger said, “We are always amenable to discuss things. I have actually had discussions with Mr. Brodsky to bring forward concerns of clients. We think we have a good project. This is the project that we have had for the last year and a half. At the last meeting we were at over a month ago (because of the change in the Board we delayed it) - but at that time we received pretty firm assurance that we were going to close the hearing and vote the Conditions. That doesn’t appear that it is going to happen. I think that we will stand on the information that we put in. The point is, and it is absolutely unequivocal, that while Mr. Harrington does want to do this he has many other alternatives of how to develop his property. Again, we put forward the best project and then the next best project. From the Board’s standpoint – we have provided all of that so after you hear from the other people I am going to ask that the meeting be closed. Obviously, I understand that you do not have time tonight to do everything tonight (conditions) so we will have to reconvene. My client thinks he has provided all the information. We could be sitting here nine months from now. It is chocolate and vanilla. You can’t make some people happy. If someone does not want a house built behind them there is nothing you can do about it.”

Mr. Walter said, “I have been listening to all of this. Does this come down to getting some kind of a hydrology study done to satisfy all of the concerns here? Quite frankly I still don’t see the need.” Mr. Limbacher added, ‘”I don’t either. I think where the hydrologist comes to play, as it has been pointed out, is with the detention basin. To the extent that it is in groundwater then it gets raised. There are strict standards that says how it has to be and how it has to relate to groundwater. If you look at the numbers it is really not an infiltration basin. It agrees with what the impact would be on the groundwater. I would not have a problem having a hydrologist come back up and look at it as a Condition. What we have now is the second best plan. The third best plan could be a common driveway with two houses on each and you will have virtually no control over what will happen with the water – none. What we have is the three common driveways which in my mind will have the same effect on the land with the exception of the fact that there will be three curb cuts as opposed to the single curb cuts. We are fortunate that the engineering that was done for the Flexible Open Space has been retained. The same BMP’s for the Flexible Open Space is being retained too. You can come back up and pick one issue and just keeping spinning this thing around. There are other things that I would like to get on with. From my standpoint, I would be prepared to close it and then come back up and vote it with conditions that give me the assurance that it is well engineered and there are safeguards in place that respond to concerns from Mr. Brodsky and others.”

A gentleman from Doctor’s Hill Drive said, “This water will eventually go to Tack Factory Pond and that water goes into our Reservoir. I have nothing against the project but I am against the three driveways on Rte. 3A because of congestion. We don’t need congestion. We cannot pollute our waters. We have to keep our waters clean.”

Atty. Brodsky said, “I just want to assure the Board that my clients have every interest in working this out with the applicant. We have actually made several proposals to the applicant to try to bridge the gap. We do have a response to that but I just want to assure you that we are trying to find that the middle ground.” Mr. Fenton asked, ‘Are you looking for specific design solutions?” Atty. Brodsky said, “I am not sure I want to do this live action at a public hearing. The second point I want to make is that we don’t want to necessarily to take an appeal of this Board’s decision but I can assure you that if the Board conditions this project on some future scientific study which may indicate that this project has an adverse impact on interests protected by the bylaw your decision will be defective, with all due respect. You need to gather the information and consider that information in a public hearing and then make your decision, with all due respect to Mr. Limbacher.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “With all due respect to Mr. Brodsky, if he feels that way I am sure he is going to appeal this.”

Mr. S. Young, 5 Old Forge Road, said, ‘With respect to the river in back of Ryan’s yard, that has happened more than just once. I think Mr. Limbacher said it happened one May. [Mr. Limbacher said that was represented by photos the Board saw.] It happened last week when we had all the rain. It happens more frequently than one would think. It happens every time it rains for two or three days.” Mr. Limbacher said, “My reference was to the hundred year storm.”

Mr. Young said, “My feeling is that on that wetland line – it is about 105’ away. I think that is something you need to address.” Atty. Ohrenberger said, “There is a whole river in Mr. Ryan’s yard. I hope for the abutters sake – if it is there they will not be able to put a shovel in the ground within 200’ of it – do a septic system or anything else.”

Mr. Robert Chessia, 9 Stearns Road, “I have a question that goes back to last March. We were told they could do rattails. Rattails were mentioned as access to the shared system. They have not supplied us with any perk tests. They have a shared system with no physical access to it. They are trying to do this development by maxing it out with shared system. I think they should show to us what the density is. As far as the Flexible Open Space you gave them a pass on the requirements in the Zoning Law because you thought it was a better plan. Since this one is not a better plan I think you should make them prove the density under the Zoning Bylaw. It looks like they are trying to come in the back door because of what you gave them with the Flexible Open Space.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “The concept of density does not apply to common driveways. All perk tests are public record.”

Mr. Walter said, “I want to bring this back to us. What is the pleasure of the Board at this point? Do you want to close it or do you want to continue it? I am not sure that a hydrologist report would show me anything more than what I know now. I look to the Board for some advice.”

Mr. Duncan said, “An abutter has raised a significant issue about groundwater effecting her property. For the health and safety of that abutter I think that this Board and this developer (the applicant) needs to prove to her beyond a shadow of a doubt that her property will not be severely damaged. I think our expert Commission is also recommending a hydrogeologist look at that. I think that we really need to take that Commission’s recommendation very seriously. I think would strongly support that.”

Mrs. Brennan said, ‘I am not comfortable putting in a hydrogeologist as a Condition. It should be done before so that people understand and have no doubt that everything possible has been done so that 30-40 years from now there are no problems relating to this development. I am sure that when the Old Forge road done it was thought to be okay.”

Mr. Fenton said, “I find myself sympathetic to Pat’s position. I am a huge fan of low impact development. I have never been a big fan of detention basins. Since there are technical questions, I remain uncomfortable. I could see not closing hearing and I could also see only doing a very clear cut program. When we get some expertise we are going to close this issue once and for all so that it does not linger because I am not prepared to do that at all. Address it – there are new technical issues that I don’t think I have enough understanding of. I would only close if I saw some answer to the technical question, and in that interim, I would also take a very close look at Conditions so that we would not be in a position of negotiating Conditions at the next meeting but rather we would have worked through the technical details of the Conditions.”

I

Mrs. Chisholm said, “On the Flexible Open Space which we approved we approved it with the knowledge that everything that was presented was correct. Now we have more information that says there could be an issue. At every single meeting the abutters were bringing up the wetland flagging. They were bringing up the water. The only answer they got was that this is the way it is. Now we hear that that may not be right. I think the abutters should have a chance to have it done correctly. I also do not think we should close the hearing. Not only should be do the hydrologist, I think we should do the wetland flagging too. I think that if they are off two feet or five feet – I am not blaming that on anyone in particular. I am just saying that if there is new information to us it needs to be looked at properly.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “Again, you have all the information. This is a situation that we don’t want to be in. All the issues that were raised tonight were raised previously. You have Conditions that you thought were appropriate. Over 30 days ago you said that you would close it. For over a year and a half this has been going around and around. I understand that you can’t vote it tonight but Mr. Harrington would like to have it closed.”

Mr. Walter said, “My response to that - you are right that about 95% of the information is there. The WRC brought up a new concept in the middle of this project.” Mrs. Brennan said, “Somebody has to be first.” Mr. Limbacher said, “Practically, it should be with the first applicant after this one. Now this one would be retro-active. We are saying – ‘I am going to hold you to standards that were created after you applied for your permit. If a bylaw was changed they would be, in effect, grandfathered. I am also pragmatic enough to say that there are some valid concerns that I think needs to be addressed.”

Mrs. Brennan said, “If it was my project I would want to meet all the criteria so it could go forward and not have people forever saying ‘they got by and they did not have to do this’. So this way every criteria and every question was addressed.” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “The fact is that it is our position is that Mr. Harrington has done all those things. The point is that this is our second choice. If Mr. Harrington ever had an inkling that he was going to spend an extra year and multiple thousands of dollars only to have someone appeal this – he never would have gone down this road. We would have been talking about this design a year and two months ago period. This falls in the category of no good deed goes unpunished – not the Board. The Board has been marvelous to work with. If you feel you can condition it -- there has to be an end line. If the Board feels that you can’t approve this then there are other alternatives for the property.”

Mr. Walter said, “I wonder if there is a way to condition it that the Board would be comfortable with. We have a list of items here from Mr. Brodsky and I think they have been addressed. I feel comfortable with that except perhaps with this hydrology thing. Again I personally feel comfortable with the wetland flagging because of the way it has been done. How many times can we keep revisiting it? So as we look at the hydrology issue, is that something that we can condition understanding that if something is found that will somehow effect the design, then they will have to come back?”

Mr. Limbacher said, “The concern is with a centralized location and that is with the basin. In my mind you could condition it with a determination of that before the basin is built. You know where the groundwater is so you could have a hydrologist look at the design.”

Mr. Duncan said, “I certainly have it as a major concern - to move forward without having all information at hand. To me I would feel much more comfortable if I had that information that this committee can say to that abutter that this project is not going to damage your property and cost you years or grief and aggravation. I would feel more comfortable having that information before any decisions are made.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “One last comment - this has been a year and a half with probably a dozen hearings where the issues that you are raising our experts have probably answered at least ten or 15 times with great specificity. So from Mr. Harrington’s standpoint this is not what we anticipated. This is not a rush forward. It has been an exhaustive analysis. “

Mr. Duncan replied, “And that has not satisfied the abutter who potentially be effected. It is a health and safety issue for her if something goes wrong with this process. I think it behooves the Board to guarantee to her that no damage to her property is going to happen. I think we need that information before hand from an expert that tells us that she is one hundred percent guaranteed. I don’t see any harm in taking the time to do that right.”

Mr. Walter said, “So the issue is to close or not close and to focus on this hydrology report on the basin.” Mr. Fenton added, “You need four votes to approve. I am trying to find that path forward. So is the applicant remotely interested in financing that work or do we have another way to get it done? Am I imagining hiring a hydrogeologist to take a look at this?”

Laura Harbottle said, There are a number of people who are qualified to do it.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “I don’t know how you can close and still get a report. It has to be part of the public hearing.” Mr. Fenton agreed with Mr. Limbacher.

Mr. Mirabito asked, “Is there a way this Board could condition it so that prior to construction a hydrogeologist look at it? Is there any need for it to be done? We have stated throughout the entire process that there is no requirement to have it done because everything is out of the groundwater and this is in compliance with your rules and regulations. The properties around this area – their basements are two to three feet below ground so they are clearly in the groundwater. We have stated that; the information shows that; and our soils maps show that. The property down below is clearly in the groundwater to begin with. The concerns she raised have been addressed over and over. If it is not necessary there is no sense in spending the money. You can have a Condition that says that a hydrogeologist can look at the design first and then see if it is required.”

Mr. Walter asked Mr. Limbacher if he said the Board should close the hearing. Mr. Limbacher responded, “No, I did not say that. I said that we can’t close the hearing and the accept a report from a hydrogeologist. I can’t close the hearing and accept new information, but I can Condition it.”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “What happens if we condition it and then the study is done and then there is a major flaw? So why would you want to close it?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “Because our engineers are competent.” Mr. Fenton said, “We could have a third party look at it and say if they are right.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I would suggest that we take an approach that: a) we close the hearing; b) we review the draft Conditions (I certainly have a couple of changes and additions); and c) schedule a time when we come back up and review the Conditions and vote it up or down.”

Mr. Fenton asked Mr. Limbacher, “So you would have a Condition about hydrological report?”

Mr. Limbacher replied, “I am not too sure but what we aren’t all there. The question is how do we figure out how to do it?”

Laura Harbottle said, “Independent about the issue of the hydrogeologist, there were other points raised tonight in the Water Resource Protection District and some of the Conditions the Board has imposed in the past regarding use of pesticides, fertilizer etc. “ Mr. Limbacher said, “Yes, we can look at the Conditions we did for Doctor’s Hill directly across the street. The ones that I am thinking of are pretty close to those. The only difference is where the septic system is located in relationship to the development and the water. There are a lot of similarities there and with the Conditions that we should impose.” Laura Harbottle added, “Yes, and there were some mentioned tonight about sight distance etc. I can help draft the Conditions.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I am more than happy to put down my thoughts and then we can circulate it to the Board so they can see it. So I would propose to: a) close the hearing; b) look at the conditions; c) vote it up or down at the next meeting.”

Mr. Fenton asked Mrs. Brennan and Mrs. Chisholm for their opinion. Mrs. Chisholm replied, “I don’t think it should be closed because the abutters should have a chance to hear it in public.” Mrs. Brennan said, “It makes me really uncomfortable that once it is closed we cannot accept the report. Is that not what you said – that we can’t accept any more information?” Mr. Limbacher responded, “What I am saying is that it could be a condition of the development.”

Mr. Walter said, “The only way you would do it is to make it very clear that the study, as a Condition, is worded in such a way that if something is found they could not go forward. They would have to have it addressed.” Mr. Fenton said, “It would be an amendment that would be done at a public hearing. Can you word it in such a way that it would stall construction?”

Laura Harbottle replied, “Yes, that is what I initially thought but I did hear a point of view expressed tonight that that was not legally the right thing to do. I had never heard that before. I can see that argument.” Mr. Limbacher added, ‘That might be a moot point if the applicant decides that he wants the hearing closed tonight.”

Mr. Walter asked, ‘So to close the hearing would we need a four-fifth’s vote?” Mr. Limbacher replied, “No, just a majority vote to close.” Mr. Walter said, “The voting members on this project are Donna, Pat, Bill, and myself.” Atty. Ohrenberger said to Mr. Fenton, “You might have missed a meeting on the Flexible Open Space but not on this one.”

Atty. Brodsky said, “I want to suggest to the Board that if you close you cannot take any more substantive information. You have to deny the project until they provide evidence that the design standards and the purpose of the local bylaw have been met. You can’t somehow condition this project on some future geological study. That is contrary to the open public meeting law. Without that information you can’t reach any other conclusion that the applicant has not met the burden.”

Mr. Walter said, “We have done this before with landscape plans.” Laura Harbottle said, “It might not have been a critical issue in terms of the development.” Mr. Fenton added, “It is substantive.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “I disagree with Mr. Brodsky. I am sure if they want to appeal it they can appeal it. Again, we are confident with our project.”

Mr. S. Young addressed Mrs. Brennan and Mrs. Chisholm and said, “As an abutter if you close this we will have no say with what happens with that report and all the other information that might come out with that report and all the other issues that are before you right now. If you are that uneasy why not just wait for the report. What difference does it make to wait? We are talking about another thirty to sixty days when we have waited a year and a half. It just closes everything out to us as an abutter. We are not as not in my back yard. If that wetland flag is wrong by 10’ it severely impacts their density. That is one. Two - if the hydrologist comes back and says there is a problem here - why not just wait. We are talking about the Town drinking water supply. We are not talking about something that is far away from the Town’s drinking water supply. I don’t think that anyone here wants that issue to come back in ten years because we didn’t wait thirty days because Mr. Ohrenberger and Mr. Harrington wants to go ahead because it is within their timeframe. You have the ability to do what you need to do to feel comfortable with the situation. If you don’t feel comfortable then don’t do it.”

Mr. Fenton said, “If I can hear a path forward that is clear and quick -- what steps are we going to take in the very foreseeable future. Are we saying that we will try to get these guys back on the schedule in two weeks and in those two weeks one or two specific things happen? That is what I want to here. Are you amenable to doing something in that interim – hire a hydrogeologist and do what Mr. Mirabito said just look at the plans and not even do a field trip?

The plans should allow for a first cut calculation and the hydrologist could say yes there is a problem or I agree with the engineer of record on that? Is that correct?”

Laura Harbottle said, “As I see it playing out - we would first have to get money from the applicant to hire the hydrogeologist. I will have to find out how much that would be. Then the hydrogeologist would come out to the site and do a walk through e.g. determine if there is a channel that is sufficient to be considered a tributary. That would take four weeks at least.”

Mr. Fenton said to Atty. Ohrenberger, “That is an opening for you guys. ”Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “Mr. Harrington will not do that. You can close and condition it.”

Mr. Limbacher asked Atty. Ohrenberger, “Are you requesting that we close the hearing? Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “Yes.”

Mr. Walter said, ‘So we have a request to close Town Hall hearing. Do we have a Motion?”

MOTION: Mr. Limbacher Moved to close all of the Common Driveway Special Permits (3) Public Hearings regarding the Harrington property on Rte. 3A. Mr. Fenton Seconded the Motion for discussion purposes.

Discussion: Mr. Walter said, ‘I can’t do that without permission from the applicant.” Laura Harbottle said, “I think it could be done (continue the hearing) without permission from the applicant. I am not sure where you are with the timeframes.”

Atty. Brodsky said, “A Special Permit is discretionary. You can continue it and you can request information. You don’t need to honor his request to close.”

Mr. Walter said, “We should be consistent with what we done before.” ” Mr. Limbacher said, “It comes down to accepting the information that we have and then do a Condition.” Mr. Fenton asked, “Can we just require it (hiring the hydrogeologist) and require them to pay for it? How do we get it done? What happens if they say no? We would have to say that we don’t have enough information so we would have to deny.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “You have always asked the applicants to agree to a continuance and you have always asked us to put that in writing. You have done that for the last twenty-five years. Are you saying that the Board has been operating incorrectly for the past twenty-five years?” Laura Harbottle said, ‘”I can go get the book by Bobrowsky because I think it is important to know.”

Vote on the Motion to Close: Mr. Walter and Mr. Limbacher voted in favor of the Motion to Close the Hearings. Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, and Mrs. Chisholm voted against the Motion. Motion failed.

Mr. Walter said, “ Motion failed so we will have to continue the public hearings.

Mr. Limbacher said, “I need to understand – so now that we are not closing the hearing – I need to understand what the next steps are. Those who voted not to close it tell me what they are.”

Mrs. Brennan said, “We have to have a hydrogeological study done. This is a public hearing. I don’t think I could have voted to close without that information.” Mr. Fenton said, “We have to contract with a hydrological engineer to look at the engineering. It would be a third party engineer who would simply confirm the assertions of the applicant – they are right this is above ground water; or they are wrong. This should be done as expeditiously as possible.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “ENSR can do that within their company. There is someone there that can do it.” Mr. Fenton said, “Yes, they can answer one or two outstanding questions and get us a very quick answer. We can put a date out there.” Laura Harbottle explained, “Usually I ask ENSR to provide us with a cost estimate and then I tell the applicant what that is and then we go from there.”

Mr. Fenton “So set a date for a month from now. Laura will find out the cost for the hydrogeologist. We will find out how they can give us succinct and direct answer to the most outstanding question which is will this groundwater going to be effected. We will give you the price and you give us the money. We will get a price and get it done as quickly as possible. The hearing is still open and we can get the information. So that is the path. That information one way or another will answer the questions.”

Mr. Young said, “There are still other outstanding issues out there.”

There was a brief discussion on the date (and time) to continue. Mr. Fenton said that the Board would continue to work on the Conditions.

MOTION: Mr. Fenton Moved to continue the three Common Driveway Special Permit Public Hearings to May 24, 2007 at 7:30 P.M. for property located on Chief Justice Cushing Highway as shown on Assessor’s Map:

Lots 1,2,3 Chief Justice Cushing Highway. Assessor’s Map 47-2-26A-26H
Lots 4,5 Chief Justice Cushing Highway. Assessor’s Map 47-2-26A-26H.
Lots 6,7,8 Chief Justice Cushing Highway. Assessor’s Map 47-2-26A-26H Mrs. Brennan Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

SITE PLAN SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 80 FRONT STREET

APPLICANT: JOHN E. CONWAY AND PATRICIA E. CONWAY, TRUSTEES

Mr. J. Conway, the Applicant, was present along with Atty. Walter Sullivan, Mr. P. Mirabito of Ross Engineering Co., Mr. D. Lonergan of DRL Architects, and Mr. J. Chaisson, General Counsel of Jack Conway Company. Mr. M. McGowan, Chairman of the Design Review Committee was present. See sign-in list for names of others present at this hearing.

Mr. J. Conway said, “I own a block of stores directly opposite the Rockland Trust Co. and next to Scituate Federal Savings & Loan Association and CVS. It goes from Cole Parkway to Front Street. I have three sections in our big building – one is the section facing Cole Parkway which is a two-story building (offices upstairs and retail downstairs) , we have a brick building on the side next to the Scituate Federal Savings & Loan that replaced a wood building that burned down about eighteen years ago. That building is completely rented and it has my office in it. Then I own a block of stores on Front Street. That block of stores was built over 100 years ago. I talked to the Building Inspector, Mr. Duggan, about it two years ago and he suggested, and I agreed, that that building has had its time and should go. So when we got an opportunity to tie into sewer we thought we would come up with a plan which would be good for the town and in keeping with the historical character of Front St. Walter Sullivan is our attorney, Jay Chaisson is our in-house counsel, Paul Mirabito is our engineer and Don Lonergan is our architect from Weymouth. Don has come up with a building that we think will be good. We started off with Laura about six months ago. Then we moved to the Board of Selectmen and presented our plan to them. Then we started moving to the various boards. No we are here.”

Atty. W. Sullivan said, “We have not been before the ZBA yet. We had a meeting scheduled but they did not have enough members. On June 21st we are back before the ZBA. We have worked with the Design Review Committee and with the Disabilities Commission. We have a report from our traffic engineer. Joe Hayes, the President of Scituate Federal Savings Bank (our next door neighbor), is in attendance. If you would allow him to say a few words of support.”

Mr. J. Hayes said, “I am Chairman and CEO of Scituate Federal Savings Bank, and we have been a neighbor of Mr. Conway as long as he has owned his building and we have owned our building – since 1972. I would like to recognize Jack for the wonderful job he has done replacing the building when it was first burnt by fire. I know he has won a number of awards for architectural design and for the work he has done for our harbor. From the standpoint of the Bank this is a wonderful added improvement to our harbor. We hope it will get built very quickly so it does not disrupt traffic too much. Other than that this is a wonderful thing for our Harbor.

As a Scituate resident and as a person who has had an office within a stone’s throw of this building for over 40 years, this will be an improvement to our Harbor. I hope you act favorably on this.”

Mr. D. Lonergan, DRL Architects, explained the plan to the Board. He said, “This is the elevation you will be seeing from Front St. We will be taking down this single story building here. We will be developing a three-story building. The first floor will have retail shops and the other two floors will have office space. The design is traditional. You can see the brick in through here and shingles in through here. There are vinyl shutters in through here. The building is set back 10’ on the retail floor and that allows us and we can get the handicap access up four feet above the street level. Here is an arcade. You come up the steps or come up the handicap ramp up a half a level up into the retail shops. We do have an alley way here that separates us from CVS. It is 4’ here and then as it goes to the back it opens up to 8’. We will widen that so it will be 8’ from Front Street to the back. That is a quick review of the exterior of the building.”

Mr. Fenton asked, “What is the depth of the sidewalk?” Mr. Lonergan replied, “Here it is 5’ and then another 5’ to the front façade of the building.” Mr. Fenton said, ‘Place the curb on this for me.” Mr. Lonergan went up to the dais and showed Mr. Fenton the area of sidewalk and curb line placement. He also described the handicap ramp, stairs, and how someone would access the retail shops.

In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Lonergan described a streetscape plan of the existing conditions.

The Board asked for clarification as to the relationship of the proposed building and the building directly behind it. Mr. Lonergan said that the proposed building was about the same height as the building behind it.

Mr. Mirabito of Ross Engineering Company explained the site plan. He said, “The site is encompassed within the yellow line on the plan. [Mr. Mirabito listed the existing uses in Mr. Conway’s building.] Next door here is the Scituate Federal Savings Bank and here is the CVS building. Here is Beal Place over here and here is the Scituate Marketplace. The ‘Existing Conditions’ plan shows the existing building which will be razed. It has an square foot elevation of 3906 S.F. The first floor elevation is elevation 10.5’ MSL. It is approximately 18” above the sidewalk that is there. The existing building is set back from the street line 4’.”

Mr. Mirabito continued, “This plan shows the proposed conditions. The proposed building is outlined in green. The shaded areas are the existing building. The small open area in the back will be closed by the new building and you will not see that from the street The alley way at the present time is 4’ here and with this plan that will be increased to 8’ and in the back it will go from 6.5’ to 10’. The setback of the new building at the street line will remain the same. As Mr. Lonergan has indicated the front of the building will have ramps here. The elevation of the first floor of the proposed building is 4’ above the sidewalk. The first floor is setback. There is no proposed changes in the grade. The existing utilities are water, sewer, gas. There is a supplemental site plan which was submitted to the Board. The purpose of that was to show where the proposed dumpster will go. The existing dumpster is wheeled out to the curb area here and picked up on an as needed basis. Mr. Conway does have a contract with a disposal company to pick these up on an as needed basis That is for this building and the proposed one. This is very straightforward. We will raze the existing building and put a new one in the same place. I will take any questions.”

Mr. Walter asked about runoff. Mr. Mirabito said, “There is no increase in the amount of runoff This whole area is paved. The water runs off roof and goes into catch basins here [Mr. Mirabito showed the Board the contours, the location of catch basins in the area, and described how the water would run into catch basins.] There will be gutters on the building to direct the water out to the storm drain system.”

Mr. Walter asked, “Did CVS tie into something in the alley?” Mr. Mirabito replied, ‘No CVS is right on the property line. There is only 4’ between CVS and the existing building.”

Mr. Fenton asked, “Did the DPW ask for something about a manhole cover under the building?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “I am not sure as to the extent of that. When we raze the building we will meet with the DPW. We don’t know what is there now. We have to resolve that. We have to do the test pits and find what is there and where it is going. We don’t know what we will fine.”

Mr. Limbacher asked Mr. Mirabito to show him the location of a telephone pole. Mr. Mirabito showed him the location of an existing pole and he explained how the wires went over the building to service the building in the back and the changes that would be required. Mr. Limbacher asked, “Will you eliminate the pole in front?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “No, it services all of Front Street.” Mr. Fenton added, “It would be great to get rid of it and the other poles on Front Street.”

Mr. Limbacher asked about the logistics of tearing down the existing building. Mr. Lonergan replied, “I have spoken with the Police Chief. Our intent is to get a permit to shut down the Front St. sidewalk for about ten days. We would go in and take down a third of the building and then go in there and work and take the rest of the building down. The Selectmen will have to agree to that concept. We would want to start after Labor Day.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “When you are doing that where is the staging for that?” Mr. Conway replied, “Mr. Conway said, “Nothing has been definitely lined up yet. We are looking around town and have found two or three different sites e.g. Paul Young Motors. We don’t have anything definite.” Mr. Limbacher replied, “That is a major concern that I have. If you could find an off-site staging area that would work well. You are looking at a pretty interesting intersection there - Bank on one side, another Bank across the street, the Market Place.”

Mr. Duncan said, “I have some questions on the building. I am somewhat disappointed in the building”

Mr. Walter asked Mr. McGowan of the Design Review Committee for comments. Mr. McGowan said, “We had two meetings. The first meeting was in March. It was long and very constructive. You have a memo we wrote on that pretty much summarizes what we thought about the design. [ See file for Design Review Committee memo.] Last week we had another meeting. In general we were pleased with the changes that they made. They addressed all of the comments that we made. There were some other minor comments In general we like the project. We like the scale and the mass. We are looking forward to going forward. The issue of the alley and the connection to Cole Parkway should be discussed.”

Mr. Duncan said, “I am an amateur artist. I think that what I see is sort of a lack of imagination. When you look at Front Street there is a eclectic mix of buildings – some of them very nice, some average, some not nice at all. What I am seeing happening with the Welch Company, and with this property (and I know that there are two other properties on Front St. that developers are looking at) is that people are creating a monotonous façade along Front Street that is overwhelming to that small street. I think that is something that everybody wants to avoid. I think the project itself is admirable but I would really like to see more imagination with the design. It looks like the other buildings that have been put up. I just don’t want to see that happen. I think there are some admirable architectural features along that street that could be used in your design so that you would get a continuity on that street and not create this canyon effect that everybody is concerned about.”

Mr. Fenton said, “I react more positively. I strongly defer to the Design Review Committee as I learn from them. I like the overhang and I like the recessed first floor. I like the third floor. I think the canyon effect is greatly mitigated because of the dormers and balconies. In particular I like that 8’ walkway. It will open up where that handicap ramp is and that 8’ walkway will feel like 15’ wide. That will soften that tremendously. That walkway right now is an aberration and it is used by a lot of people. A real pedestrian access out to Cole Parkway is great. I would like to see more detail about that. I like your plantings and benches on Front St. I like the overhang. Perhaps some of it could be carried around the corner. I hope that happens. concept with lighting etc. I like the passageway by the Bank. I commend that. The traffic study mentioned the parking issue. One of the ways to address it in a downtown environment is to make meaningful pedestrian and bicycle accommodation e.g. real bike racks in a good location. It must be meaningful– pedestrian walkways and bike paths. So I put that on the table.”

Mrs. Chisholm spoke about the problems with trash at CVS and asked for clarification of the dumpster area and trash pickup at this site. Mr. Mirabito explained, “We would be wheeling the trash containers out to the sidewalk. They are not that large. They are about 3’ x 5’ and they are on wheels.” Atty. Sullivan added, “The contractors will come and unlock the gate. There will be a gate separating the two buildings. There will be a locked gate and an emergency egress. They will never be left out on the sidewalk.” Mrs. Chisholm said, “The walkway needs some nice lighting in there especially at night.” Atty. Sullivan said, “The plan does show lighting.” Mrs. Chisholm continued, “The third thing is with the canyon effect – the side view is just straight up. Perhaps we could put in the second level a bit more and the third level a bit more it would take away that canyon effect.” Mr. Walter said, “What you are seeing there is actually set back. Look at the rear elevations.” Mrs. Chisholm said, “Even the second floor is not set back - I can’t see it. I am thinking about the Mallios building across the street. Their floors are back and back. If you are standing on the street you don’t see those setbacks. I am just saying just cut them in a little bit more. I am talking about the front elevation. When you look at the Mallios building you don’t look up and see the dormer right there. You look up and see sky and then you look back and see the dormer.”

Mr. Walter said, “What you are looking at is a two story building with dormers on top. It is consistent with Design Review Regulations.” Mrs. Chisholm said, ‘But if it was just set back a little bit more.”

Laura Harbottle said, “Streetscape concept for that alleyway – I just want to mention that the Town did a design charrette for Scituate Harbor and it has some very good ideas. I think it is wonderful that you are opening up that walkway to Cole Parkway. That report is on the town web site.” Mr. Lonergan said he would look at the report and Mr. Conway said he has previously talked to Ms. Harbottle about that.

Mr. Limbacher said, “I like the way the new building ties in with the old building.”

Mr. Walter said, ‘I did go to the DRC meeting and as Mike said they (the applicant) was very amenable to addressing the comments made by the Design Review Committee. I have seen this twice already. My first concern was that the building was too residential but the more I look at it I think it actually has a nice feel for down town. The other thing that I think would help would be to bring in pictures of the Welch Co. building etc and have a montage and show how this building is different from that because I think it is different.”

Mr. Duncan said, “One of the concerns is that it looks like what we seeing going up along Rte. 53 from Hingham down – those strip mall buildings. Again, it is taste. You like something or you don’t like something. There is much more development going to be going on especially with the two properties. We are going to be facing in a year or two the same kind of three story structures which don’t have a lot of variety. I know it meets Design Review standards. I think we really need to challenge ourselves and I think we really need to challenge developers and architects to come up with a better vision of what the downtown should look. How can we preserve the character of this with the new development. There will definitely be new development that will happen. I would challenge the Design Review people to look at their standards. Perhaps they need to be strengthened. I would like to something more imaginative and incorporate some of the good features of the local architecture.”

Mr. Walter said, “I suggested framing the building with something different on the ends or something different on one end.” Mr. Duncan added, “There is a repetitiveness.” Mr. Lonergan said, “There are a lot of articulations on this building, especially on the front elevation. It is set back. This is not residential property. It is an office building. Again, there are balconies on the 3rd floor. A lot happens with this building. We think that this will be a very attractive building. There is a vista going down to the ocean.”

Mr. Walter said, “Bring us in a perspective. I think that would help.” Mr. Lonergan said, “We will bring we will bring in more information to you and show you the streetscape. We will show you the color and the textures.”

Mr. Conway described work done by Mr. Lonergan on a building in Pembroke.

Mr. Walter said, “Parking and the increase in parking: I know you will park in Cole Parkway.” Mr. Fenton said, “I think it is unfortunate you are not doing apartments. I understand the concern that that would have increased the parking so the parking requirements would have been higher. Often people who live in downtown like this don’t need more than one car because they can walk. So it is a one car household rather than two. A transportation management plan that would mediate the parking in Cole Parkway e.g. could there be a reward for an employee who comes to work without an automobile? Some would argue that that is not in our review but I would argue that it is. We must consider the parking. You could put together a meaningful transportation management plan. I would ask the Board to think about it. Perhaps there is something that you can do that is off site to help employees to access this building. One of the most important connections we can make is from the harbor to the transit stations. I would ask the Board to consider this as another opportunity to think about a modest contribution to offset some of the parking burden. I just want to put that on the table.”

Mr. Duncan said, “Looking at the bylaw for the Special Permit - the applicant must bring a parking plan in that must be looked at and approved. There seems to be certain requirements that there needs to be existing space. Just saying that we will use on street parking and Cole Parkway – I don’t think that is a parking plan. Looking at the size of the building (11,500 S.F. or so) given the calculations in the Bylaw it comes out to 38 or 39 parking spaces. So they have to bring us a parking plan and then we look at it and see if it can be modified or make any concessions about using the public parking on Cole Parkway.”

Mr. Limbacher said, ‘It looks to be an increase of about 25 spaces. I think we have a pretty good history of the parking there.”

Atty. Sullivan said, ‘The traffic report also suggests that creativity that Mr. Duncan is talking about. Example – shared transportation. Another thing - the retail parking spaces would not just be for us but would gravitate towards other retail facilities. With the help of the DRC our products will be seen from street. There could be more traffic because more people will be using the retail area. Jack could have asked for an apartment building, but Jack realizes that there must be businesses. People who live here should be able to shop in Scituate. That is what we are thinking of. I don’t think that 24 spaces will be used. There is more than 24 spaces available based on the historic use of that area. The other thing about these parking spaces - some will be used from 9 to 5. I understand the other competing interests of the parking area. When I take my walks through the Harbor I see a lot of waste – wasted energy in the municipal parking area. Something like this would put it to use. I think this walkway will be a grand invitation for the concerts that we have in Cole Parkway. There are all kinds of opportunities. Certainly, we are interested in having bike racks. We could have bikes that people could rent.” Mr. Fenton said, “Maybe there could be bikes that employees could use during the day.”

The Chair called for public comment.

Dr. Gordon Price, 48 Mann Lot Road, asked about the elevation. Mr. Mirabito explained, “The first floor has to be at elevation 13 according to FEMA and Conservation.” The maps were revised in 2004 which brought the elevation up and Conservation adds one foot to that for good measure. So this would be higher than if we did it back in 2002.”

Dr. Price said he thought that the architecture in the Harbor is a hodgepodge of architecture. He said he thought the design of the newer buildings in the Harbor has been a good thing.

He spoke about the new restaurant that opened up very recently on Front St. (Phins) and said he thought the shingles and color of the proposed building would fit in well with the Harbor.

Mrs. Doreen Close, Summer Street, said, “I am enthusiastic about business opportunities in the Harbor and I would encourage that. On the architecture - I don’t understand why it has to be so repetitive? There are so many opportunities. I would like to see something that is really creative. It is a long building that could be broken up into smaller buildings to give it the feel of smaller buildings. The main problem is with the roof lines. You have the maximum square footage and height. You have some setback on the ground floor but I don’t understand why there is these mall like walkways. Why not stairs going into the individual retail businesses? Everything seems to be these walkways now. It is easy just to pass by there. If you had a stairway going up you would be more inclined to go into an individual business space. I’d love to see something a little bit more creative. The other thing - I thought we had a bylaw that says that the third floor had to be set back.” Mr. Walter replied, “It is set back.” Mrs. Close replied, “The dormers are right at the street. I don’t see how it meets the bylaw. It does away with setting back the third floor if the dormers and balconies are pushed right out to the street.”

Laura Harbottle read aloud the section of the Zoning Bylaw about setting back the third floor.

Mrs. Close continued, “Those are not setback. That is disappointing because that was a hard fight. The whole reason was to try to stop this box effect. It really reminds me of the Welch Co. Just have some variation in height and set back the third floor. It looks like a computer designed it. I do this for a living so I have some ideas about what is possible.”

Mrs. Close continued, “The second is about parking. You probably all received my memo that I sent. The bylaw is the bylaw and it states how much parking is required for businesses. I keep saying over and over again that you keep breaking the bylaw. You did it for the Welch Co. and you did it for Pallotta and now you are doing it for this one. Sometimes the bylaw appears almost meaningless. They don’t have any parking for this building. I don’t understand how you can justify breaking the bylaw over and over again. I am not a lawyer but I have done some research. You can’t give a special permit unless a project meets the bylaw and this doesn’t. I don’t understand how can you allow this project when they don’t have enough parking. They don’t have any parking.”

Mr. Walter said, “I think we have to think about a date to continue this.” Atty. Sullivan indicated that he agreed there was a need to continue the hearing He said that the hearing before the ZBA was continued to June. Laura Harbottle suggested that the hearing should be continued to the June 28th Planning Board meeting because that would be after the hearing with the ZBA.

Atty. Sullivan agreed to that date.

MOTION: Mr. Fenton Moved to continue the Site Plan Special Permit Public Hearing re 80 Front Street to June 28, 2007 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Limbacher Seconded the Motion and the vote on the Motion was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion. Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, and Mrs. Chisholm voted on the Motion.

The applicants, Walter Collins and Kevin Skeiber, were present along with their attorneys, Atty. W. Ohrenberger and Atty. G. Harris, from Ohrenberger Assocs. Mr. R. Gaskin, the engineer for the project was also present. See sign-in list for names of others present for this hearing.

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “I will give a very brief synopsis of where we are. This is behind T.K. O’Malley’s. It is a dock system that has already been approved by the Conservation Commission. I think from the prior hearings that parking is the issue that we want to get into here. A restaurant is a classic water dependent use. The Scituate Chamber of Commerce supports the project. It is a good way to provide non-vehicle transportation to the Harbor. We have a number of transient spots for boats. We have public access. There is an area here for public views. Walter wants to have community based activities e.g. fishing tournaments for kids. Again, after the last hearing – we will put a bicycle rack out front. You know that there is a long, long waiting list for boat slips in Scituate Harbor. So we are back to the parking issue.”

Atty. Ohrenberger continued, “Let me tell you a bit about what is being proposed and what has been changed since last time. Rod did an actual tape and I think you all got a copy of that tape. Last time we were asked to find some information – what is the utilization of Cold Parkway? The initial proposal was for 20 slips. Of those 20 slips, two of the slips are going to be used by Jim Bournazos. He lives in the neighborhood and he is actually the owner of the abutting building. Secondly, we had proposed to give two spaces to the Town of Scituate. Now the town seems to be lukewarm about that. If the town does not want those we will reduce the size of this from 20 to 18 slips. So that leaves 16 slips. The proposal was that half of those would be transient and the other half rented on a seasonable basis. We have acquired parking rights from Dr. Parsons to use his property on evenings, all day Sundays, and Saturday afternoons. We counted 10 parking spots there. We are also providing a drop off spot so people can drop off at the location of T. K.’s parking lot any gear or packages they have. Also, as part of the rental agreement for any of the people who are seasonal renters will be contracturally that the only place they can park will be at Dr. Parsons or Cole Parkway or their seasonal rental will be subject to revocation. I know the bylaw that was proposed was indefinitely postponed. That was to reduce the amount of parking spaces for marinas. So we are not only reducing it to 18 spots, we will increase the transient spots to 10 and reducing the number of seasonal renters to 6. Our position is that the transients will not have motorized vehicles. With the 10 spots that we have a Dr. Parsons (even without Cole Parkway) we will have 6 spots for the seasonal renters. So we think that we comply with the bylaw.”

Mr. Rod Gaskell referred to his notes from the last meeting and said, “There were many anecdotes about what was happening around the Harbor with the parking. So I offered to do some good faith effort on research I have some quantitative data about marinas. I also took it upon myself to make a DVD. [Mr. Duncan said he watched the DVD.] I summarized my research in my report dated April 20th. “

[ **Please see Mr. Mr. Gaskell report which gives a detailed account of traffic counts and conditions done on various days, times, and dates by various experts in the field.]

Mr. Gaskell explained, “The studies were very conservative. What we are looking is the data base to make an intelligent decision on the ratio of parking spaces that are actually needed for marinas. It was a large data base and was done in a very conservative way. They contacted 169 marinas and then came down to 144 marinas. They considered the three busiest days – the July 2nd (Saturday), July 3rd (Sunday) and then July 4th. There are two typical days in August that were considered. To summarize – there are two parts that are important. One is boat use. These are things that I represented to you from my experience and what I have observed for years. The use of the boats on July 3rd – only 46% of the boats were out while the rest were all buttoned up. In an August weekend which is more representative of a weekend 33% were out and on a weekday 13%. That is what I have observed. [Mr. Gaskell listed a number of boat/car/ berth ratio figures – see his report for details.] The essence of this is that we concluded that one space per two floats is more than adequate for high weekends.

They said there should be off loading zones near the waterfront and push the parking away from marinas.”

Mr. Gaskell then summarized data from another study – a formal review of marinas in Boston. He gave some examples of marinas in Boston Mr. Gaskell said that fifty percent of towns do not have any regulations about parking. Boston is .125 spaces, Quincy is .5, Newburyport is .6, and Beverly is the highest with 1.0.

Mr. Gaskell said he offered his video as a source of data and documentation (see video for detailed information). He discussed his various trips to Scituate when he visited the Scituate Town Pier area on a Saturday morning and also went to Cole Parkway and took pictures of the parking there. Mr. Gaskell said he understands that there are over 300 spaces in Cole Parkway so he felt that two or three extra people from the proposed marina parking in Cole Parkway would not cause a problem because each time he visited Scituate (on nice summer days) most of the Cole Parkway spaces were empty. Mr. Gaskell emphasized the fact that on all his trips to Scituate e.g. Aug. 11th, August 18th he saw no parking problems in the waterfront areas. He stated that while there may be days when parking could be a problem but those days would be the exception and not the rule. Mr. Gaskell pointed out that the project was driving a water dependent use.

Mr. Gaskell said, “From a planning point of view, with respect to marinas, 1.5 is really excessive and not supported by any data.”

Mr. Fenton and Mr. Walter both thanked Mr. Gaskell for providing the Board with all the documentation as they felt it was very helpful for the Board to have this information.

Atty. Ohrenberger explained how the walkway works for boat people and people at the restaurant noting the areas that would be locked from the public. A lock box will be available for the Fire Dept. He said, “Rod spent a lot of time on the waterfront issues. As I have said we have Conservation approval, and Harbormaster and Waterways. Between Quincy and Plymouth there is really no situation where boaters can come in and have lunch. This is a great way for people to come in and have lunch and have a transient lunch. Walter Collins and Kevin think this will be a great attribute not only for their restaurant but for the town. They are very enthusiastic about this and having community activities that the Town really needs. The reason is that there are some seasonal renters there is the reality is that they need some type of revenue to provide funds to keep it going e.g. if it rains for six weeks. It is important to get your approval for this. If the Board feels compelled to have more transient space we are amenable to that.”

Mr. Gaskell said, “In my former life I worked with the State Division of Waterways. One of the hardest things to get was transient slips from proponents because the money was not there. I have never been involved in a waterfront project with this many transient boats. It will not be just people from out of town. Scituate people will come in at 5:00 at night and pull in and go to the restaurant. So it will help the Scituate boaters and they are not using parking.”

Mr. Limbacher asked for clarification on the handicap access. Mr. Gaskell said, “We have no provision for handicap access other than what we show here. It is 4’ wide, it is safe, with rails on both sides. There is no public access handicap or otherwise from this point on. You could kind of get it but it would need a longer ramp and that is very precarious.”

Mr. Walter asked, “Is handicap access a requirement?” Mr. Limbacher replied, “I think so.”

Mr. Gaskell said, “I don’t know of any marina that has it – look at them.” Mr. Limbacher said, “I am not arguing I am just raising the question. In talking with Barbara of the Commission on Disabilities (COD) she had concerns. I asked her if there were Rules & Regulations and she provided me with some information.” Mr. Gaskell showed the Board the areas where a wheelchair could navigate the site from a practical point of view. He noted that people could sit and enjoy the Harbor in areas that they could not sit now without going into the restaurant and paying money. Now their main access to the Harbor would be in the restaurant.

Mr. Duncan said, “Once you bring in the parking plan which is required by the Bylaw – will you bring in a plan showing the handicap spaces? The Bylaw states that you need to bring into the Board a parking plan and then it can be approved or disapproved by the Board and then it could be tweaked. My understanding is that you are requesting parking spaces in Cole Parkway. The Board can grant that based on your parking plan. As part of that parking plan there would be the handicap spaces.”

Mr. Gaskell showed the Board a parking plan for ten spaces at Dr. Parson’s property with one space being dedicated as a handicap space.

Mr. Duncan said, “There is a new parking bylaw. Will that meet the bylaw? It is a new use. We need information on handicap access and ADA requirements. For many years I was responsible for parking plans as a health care administrator. New uses come under ADA guidelines. I think the Board needs to have more clarification.”

Mr. Gaskell said, “Now that we have the ratio down so we could dedicate another space as handicap space.” Mr. Duncan said, “The T.K.’s handicap space can’t be counted twice.”

Mr. Walter said, “So there are 18 slips with 2 dedicated to the abutters. So of the 16 slips there will be 10 transient and 6 permanent. With our current bylaw there is 1.5 per slip so that would be 9 spaces and you have 10. I am saying that the abutters slips will not require parking. So I came up with 6 seasonal. So do we agree with the parking?”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “Dr. Parsons’ lot - did someone measure it?” Mr. Gaskell replied, ‘The measurements are on the plan. There are 13 spaces. I did not do it with an instrument survey. I did it with a tape measurement.” Mrs. Brennan said that she had worked in the area and she described parking problems connected with Dr. Parsons’ lot.

Mr. Gaskell said, “Those are the measurements and there is room for 13 spaces. I did the measurements. See the sketch. We have room for 13 and we are only asking for 10. I can’t strip it because it is gravel.”

Mr. Fenton said, “So to summarize – our bylaw does not distinguish between transient and non-transient, does it? So you would take the number 18 and multiply it by 1.5. I just want to put this out on the table. So that number is 27. Having said that one rationale is that the two abutters live nearby – the slips are not designated to an address but to a person.”

Atty. Ohrenberger informed the Board about the location of the waterfront property owned by the two abutters (Bournazos). That property has their own dock system abutting T.K.’s.

Mr. Fenton continued, “So the case is made that those two abutters won’t need parking. That is one path of action for approval. We would just be worrying about the 6 seasonal and not the transient. Another way to rationalize -- I will look at data and say that the 1.5 is not needed. We would essentially be waiving that. That is what I want to ask – are we essentially waiving that or what procedure allows us to say that we buy that? So if we make that case then we would grant the approval with some creative math about the transient and the abutters.”

Laura Harbottle said, “I think you could take 6 times the 1.5 and also I think that you can look at Cole Parkway. That is reasonable. You will probably have people dropping people off at the gate and then going and parking and then the people you drop off will get on the boat and then sail over and pick them up at the Harbormasters dock.”

Mr. Fenton said, ‘We will have to say all of that in our decision.”

Mrs. Brennan said, “The Hingham one has private parking so to me it is sort of comparing apples and oranges. Cole Parkway, our public parking, is being used for a lot of activities. I am impressed by your report. I know that a lot of people have boats that they don’t use.”

Mr. Walter said, “I can leave Cole Parkway out of it and do my own math.” Mrs. Brennan added, “What about the people who come down to use their boats on Saturday morning and can’t use Dr. Parson’s and have to use Cole Parkway?”

Mr. Gaskell said, “With respect to Hingham specifically I documented that to simply provide evidence between the relationship between the number of cars and the number of slips. That was all I was focusing on. We are having the same thing in our town – the public beach and parking. It is the same debate over and over again. We have plenty of capacity but it is not as big as Cole Parkway.”

Mr. Duncan asked, “Can we ask that at the next meeting we actually have a plan with measurements of the parking. The bylaw specifically states that the Board must review a plan. That to me is important.” Mr. Gaskell replied, “We are engineers and we can put our stamp on a plan. We can certainly do that. We can’t stripe the area.” Mr. Duncan said, “We will be asked twenty-five times for businesses to use Cole Parkway.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “How many water dependent uses are there in Scituate Harbor – damn few. How many transient opportunities are there? This is a one shot deal. If you look at Scituate Harbor, this is it. If you want to do something that adds to the revitalization of the town and the Harbor District – this is it. We looked at the parking and we actually tried to acquire additional parking. When we couldn’t that is when we said that we would have more transient spots. Two other local marinas have zero parking.”

Mrs. Brennan asked about the need for seasonal renters. Atty. Ohrenberger said, “The reason for that is if it is raining all the time we would not have transient boaters.”

Mr. Gaskell said, “If Cole Parkway is historically filled tidelands then DEP would not allow donut shops and movie theaters. They want uses that can bring the public there so that all the public can get on the water. The restaurant is one place where you can go in and see the waterfront. Cole Parkway serves retail uses that are not water dependent. In a coastal community water dependent uses needs some special attention.”

Mr. Walter Collins said, “We are trying to accommodate the public and obviously help our business. Instead of parking on the street it is parking on the water. That is what it boils down to. Another thing is that we also provide a restroom facility which a lot of marinas don’t. We are trying to do this right and provide the best scenario that we can.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “How do you keep the abutters from renting out their slips? Do they have boats?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “I don’t know if they have boats. They both live on Harbor Heights Road.” Mr. Limbacher continued, “I am concerned about those slips. How do I enforce transient slips? Are they transient for three or four days in a row?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “Walter wants people to come in and be patrons at their restaurant. They will have someone in charge of the docks.” Mr. Gaskell added, “The way it is controlled – Boston charges $20.00 to $30.00 an hour for transient slips. You won’t hang out for three days. It will not be cheap to hang out there. That is what happens in Boston Harbor.”

Mrs. Chisholm asked, “What happens if people do park at Dr. Parson’s lot early in the morning?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “If someone wants to go boating on Saturday morning they will pull in, drop their passengers and gear there, drive down to Cole Parkway and park.” Mr. Gaskell said, “Dr. Parson’s will enforce it.” Mrs. Chisholm said, “I see it as a huge problem. Lots of people don’t follow the rules.” Mr. Gaskell said, “Dr. Parson is coming into this with his eyes open. He will enforce it.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “About sixty-five percent of the time I am on my boat by myself.”

Mr. Leary, 199 Front Street, said, “The great majority of transient boats are 30 to 35 feet long. These slips are 25 feet so many of these boats will not fit there (yes). Secondly, they have 18 slips with only 6 seasonal. If transient business is not good he may come back and ask for more seasonal. So what will happen to the parking then?”

Mr. Leary continued to talk about the existing parking problems in the area. He said that T.K’s don’t regulate their parking now and he thought adding the marina would be adding another parking problem to a very difficult area.

Mr. Limbacher said, “What happens if there is not enough business for the transient slips that he has and he wants to change them to permanent slips? There is nothing about that in here.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “By this Special Permit he would not be able to do that. They are willing to go forward with this Special Permit. They are excited about it. This will be good for them and also for Scituate Harbor.”

Mrs. Doreen Close said, “I love T.K.’s but this is like the elephant in the room. What happens if Dr. Parson’s want to sell it? Will anyone on this Board remember that the parking is for this use. I saw the Welch Co. being able to use their parking four times. Will it be a deeded right at Parsons?”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “The answer to that is that it will be a Condition of the Special Permit it. The number of spaces must be maintained. If they don’t have the spaces then they have a big problem. The point is that if they don’t meet the Conditions of the Special Permit you can rescind it. If there is a violation you can rescind it. If a situation like that occurred then Walter and Kevin would have to come up with other parking. If that was not acceptable to the Board they would be out of luck.”

Mrs. Chisholm said, “I thought that when we talked about this awhile ago Dr. Parson’s was not an option. You ran into issues. The hours are odd. I am surprised that it is back. Maybe I misunderstood.” Mr. Walter said, “It is not perfect.”

Mrs. Chisholm asked, “Why were we so against it before?” Mr. Walter replied, “We just wanted to see the options.” Mrs. Chisholm asked, “If this falls through are there any other options?”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “It is just a function of how much you want to pay for anything. Walter will always have one or two people eye-balling things or whatever.” Mr. Collins spoke about the number of people he had working at T.K’s and how they monitored the restaurant functions.

Mrs. Chisholm said, “It doesn’t sound like a good parking plan. Our bylaw does not separate out transient.” Mr. Walter said, “Coming in by boat you are transient.” Mrs. Chisholm said, “I used to meet my friends down there. You could still have people coming by car to meet your friends on a boat.” Mr. Walter said, “They could meet at Cole Parkway too.” Mrs. Chisholm said, “Transient is by boat but there is the possibility of having a car or two.”

Mr. Fenton said, “They have come back with fewer slips. They have already reduced it from 20 to 18 and have made more transient . Do we want to push the transient number up or reduce the number of slips down? I understand what the parking plan is, but procedurally I would like to see it formalized. Think about where you want it to go. I have heard more evidence. We have talked about parking in the Harbor. People think there is no parking if they have to walk a block. I can deal with it with Conditions. I would like to see this water based use. Having transient slips there is great. As far as the abutters slips – if they change hands we get to see it. I would like to hear from the Board.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “As far as parking spaces – everywhere people violate the rules all the time e.g. they park in handicap spaces, in people’s driveways . As far as the abutters - we have saved them the expense of them building a dock. I would rather change one more spot to transient.”

Mr. Duncan said, “Parking is a major issue. Your parking plan should address enforcement. There needs to be some sort of enforcement for that end of town. It should include T.K’s parking and Dr. Parsons parking.” Atty. Ohrenberger said, “T.K’s parking – they have the highest motivation in the world – they don’t want people there for three hours.”

Mr. Duncan replied, “There is no enforcement. Why would we want to aggravate that situation? Part of the parking plan should be enforcement for the restaurant and for your parking.”

Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “Why do we want to aggravate that? We are trying to do something that will make the Harbor a better place. They will spend an incredible amount of money. If you are going to be drop dead obstructionist -- I can get into a discussion about tax base, tax revenue, and all this kind of stuff. People talk about scenic Scituate Harbor and all this stuff but I have lived here my whole life and I remember people shooting heroin back in the 60’s and 70’s near the theater and lots of buildings falling down. The glamour is really not there. There are only a limited number of successful businesses. It is not easy running a restaurant with the parking situation. They are restaurateurs and they want to run a restaurant. They are trying to do something good here. If you want to be a strict obstructionist – then you should tell Jack Conway right now that he can’t build his building, and tell CVS to vacate their building, tell the marina next to us (who didn’t have to come before the Planning Board and they have zero parking) to go away - but that is not in the best interest of the town.” Mr. Duncan replied, “But you can’t junk the bylaws either.” Atty. Ohrenberger said, “I am not saying to junk the bylaws. We can work within the bylaws.” Mr. Duncan said, “It is a very difficult problem and it needs to be decided so that everybody is happy or somewhat happy with the situation. People live in that area are concerned. We want this to go forward. I think it is a wonderful idea to bring more business to the Harbor, but we have to weigh and measure.”

Mr. Fenton asked Mr. Duncan, “Are there numbers that could be put up that would make you more comfortable?” Mr. Duncan replied, “The numbers of the slips and the calculations of the parking spaces - if that can be maintained and enforced then I would be comfortable.

Look at the hours of availability but that will all be in the plan so it will be easier for us to look at it and analyze it. I would like to have a complete plan.”

Mrs. Marjory Leary 199 Front Street said she was concerned about what would happen with the Bournazos two slips because she did not think that the Bournazos owned a boat. She suggested that the Bournazos slips could change the numbers on the T.K’s proposal. Mr. Collins said, “Make them transient.” Mr. Fenton asked, “Are they needed to make this work?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “One of the things we want to do is to be fair to them. I don’t want to tie their hands.”

Mr. Fenton asked it is was possible to shrink down the numbers. Atty. Ohrenberger pointed out that the original number was 24.

Mr. Gaskell said, “This is how big this marina started. This structure we have now is about the $150,000 to build. One of the things they allowed us to do is - this is built to hold battleships. It is the most substantial marina structure in the Harbor. [Mr. Gaskell described the proposed construction of the marina.] The Town Pier is unsubstantial compared to this. That is the way they wanted it designed and I think that makes a lot of sense. It is a very expensive structure. My own sense is that they will need 18 to 22 slips to make it work.”

Atty. Ohrenberger spoke about the Bournazos and said, “On an ethical basis – these people have been with us through all the hearings – through Conservation, through the Army Corps. There is no way we would say – thanks for helping us through these things but now we are not going to take care of you.” Mr. Limbacher said, “The two slips bother me. They may have had a boat at one time or another.” Mrs. Brennan asked, “Should we assume that they could have younger extended families that would use them?”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Suppose you came back up and you were down to 14, with 6 transits and 8 that are rented. You would have parking for 8. Eight times one and a half is about 12 which is about what you have. I think you have trouble getting 13 cars in the Parsons lot. So for the majority of the time you would have it covered. To the extent that that works, then come back and say here is what I had and here is the history of the parking and ask to expand the marina base.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “These guys really want to do this. We will get the parking plan done. To build this they have to build the 18 spaces. With regard to parking, if you want to have only 4 seasonal rentals and have 12 transients then they will do it.” Mr. Walter said, “So it would be 12 transient and 4 seasonal.” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “Yes, but I don’t want to trick the Bournazos. I don’t want to hurt these people. We will have parking.”

Mr. Gaskell said, “The way this is laid out for 100% seasonal boats. You could put in a large transient boat because it is a very different matter tying up a transient boat. You could put a 40’ transient boat right here, but that is not a safe tie up for overnight. It is absolutely okay for 2 or 3 hours. There is no problem with 30’ – 32’ boats whatsoever. There is 8’ of water here.”

Mr. Walter summarized the discussion. He said, “So 18 slips with 2 dedicated, 12 transit, and 4 seasonal. Any comments on that?” Mr. Fenton said, “That is moving towards the direction that I want. The parking plan will help. It is moving in the right direction.”

Mr. Walter said, “It just seems like 18. You don’t want it to get smaller than 18.” Mr. Gaskell said, “It has come down from what was presented by 26%.”

Mr. Fenton said, “I would actually move to continue with the understanding that you will have a really organized version of a parking plan. This is important that everybody on the Board weigh in on this now. If the Board has no interest in this then we should vote it down right now. Do we have enough people who are interested in seeing the details on the parking plan with a model looking more like this.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “Can I make a suggestion, without being presumptuous, assuming we satisfy the things that you are saying – is this something you feel comfortable about?.” Mr. Walter replied, “I am comfortable with it.” Mr. Limbacher said, “I like the concept of the marina and I think the concept of having transient slips is important. It really is. That I like. What I am a little uncomfortable with (and what I need to resolve in my own mind) is that I am looking at putting in an increased demand – probably the answer is not 1 ½ but something less than that – at the same time I have to be comfortable with the commitment I am making for the marina that there is adequate parking and have to be fair to the people who use it and also we have to be fair to the neighbors. I guess I am not buying into the concept that Cole Parkway is really the correct answer to the problem.”

Mr. Walter said, “The best time to use Cole Parkway is mid week.” Mr. Limbacher said, “During the week day there is no parking at all. You don’t pick parking until evening, or till Saturday afternoon, or you don’t pick it up till Sunday.” Mr. Gaskell said, “So you use Cole Parkway.” Mr. Limbacher said, “So 10:00 A.M. on Monday you would use Cole Parkway.”

Mrs. Brennan said, “I think it is a great concept but I have a hard time seeing four suburbans in Doctor Parson’s parking spaces.” Mr. Gaskell replied, “I know that I have to find 10 spaces with a reasonable parking space.”

Mr. Fenton said, “One of the answers may be valet parking.” Mr. Collins said, “We did a shuttle bus (from Cole Parkway to T.K.’s and other locations) but nobody rode it. People will rather walk from Cole Parkway.”

Mr. Walter asked the Board, “How about the numbers?” Mrs. Brennan said, “Okay.” Mrs. Chisholm said, “I don’t like the whole parking thing. I think that people will violate the rules.” Mr. Fenton said, “I want to hear the details of the plan. I think we have a plan that we could deal with. I am not kidding about valet parking. You could be creative. You can hear exactly where the Board is heading. You need to really chew on the reality. It needs to be functional.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “It will be contingent upon – what happens if you ever lose Dr. Parson’s parking.” Mr. Fenton said, “We will have to condition it to address the aspect of that plan. Mrs. Brennan asked, “Do you have an actual agreement with him?” Laura Harbottle replied, “We have a copy of the agreement.”

Mr. Walter said, “So we need to see the parking plan; the numbers we spoke about.” Mr. Fenton added, “Lay out how you can really get the 13 spaces.”

Mr. Gaskell said, “We did a survey. So you want it laid out with the spaces. I can do that by Monday.” Atty. Ohrenberger said, “So we could come back in two weeks.”

Mr. Walter said, “Think about how it will all work with the parking agreement, with the valet option, the whole bit. Think about how it will all work.” Mrs. Brennan added, “Have something that the abutters can read. It will be a matter of public record.” Mr. Limbacher said, “The important thing is how you are going to enforce it.”

There was a discussion about the time to continue. It was noted that Mr. Fenton would not be present on May 10th. May 24th was the first date mentioned but Atty. Ohrenberger said that Mr. Gaskell was not able to attend the May 24th meeting. Atty. Ohrenberger asked if everyone would be present on June 14th meeting and the members indicated that they would be present. He indicated that the June 14th date for the continuance was acceptable to him.

MOTION: Motion duly Moved by Mr. Fenton to continue the Site Plan Special Permit Public Hearing for 194 Front Street to June 14, 2007 (7:30 P.M.). Motion Seconded by Mr. Limbacher and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion. Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, and Mrs. Chisholm voted in favor of the Motion.

The applicant’s representatives indicated that the parking plan would be prepared and submitted in a timely fashion so that the Board could review it at the June 14th meeting.

[Mr. Limbacher did not take part in the review of this Form A as he is a direct abutter to the site.]

Laura Harbottle explained than to the Board. She said that the plan was just changing a lot line.

There were no other comments.

MOTION: Mr. Fenton Moved to endorse as approval under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required a plan of land located in the Town of Scituate at 331 Gannett Road. Plan prepared by Ross Engineering Co. and dated January 15, 2007. Motion Seconded by Mrs. Chisholm and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Bond Printing ($85.26) for printing of 500 Sheets of Planning Board letterhead. ENSR ($1375.05) consulting services for Great Rock Island.

Respectfully submitted,

Merrilyn O’Brien, Secretary

Mary Patricia Brennan

Date Approved