Members Present: Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, Mr. Duncan

Others Present: Mr. J. Powers, Mr. E. Divine, Mr. H. Stokes (DRC);

Mr. & Mrs. Kochman, Atty. M. Hayes; Atty. J. DeLisi

See sign-in list for names of others present at this meeting

Tape d

Acceptance of Agenda: Mr. Fenton Moved to accept the ‘Second Amended Agenda’. Mrs. Brennan Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

INTERVIEW WITH JOHN WITTEN: This interview was cancelled. Mr. Witten sent the Board an e-mail stating that he was too busy to put his name in as a consultant to do the work on the update of the Zoning Bylaws.

OLD BUSINESS, NEW BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE, ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS, UPDATES

Site Plan Waiver 31-51 Front Street – 1 & 3 Brook Street: Mr. James Powers, property owner, and his designer, Mr. Ed. Divine were present. Mr. Hal Stokes of the Design Review Committee (DRC) was present.

Mr. Powers explained that he wanted to remodel the building from the area next to Maria’s, around the corner of Front and Brook Streets, up to the alleyway between his property and Hennessey News. The plans call for new doors, windows, brick facing so it will all look the same from corner to corner.

Mr. Divine explained the plan in detail. He said that there would be no change in use. The building on the corner is vacant now but may become occupied when a new business tenant is found. He showed the Board the access points to the second floor, and the recessed entrances. Zuki’s Hair Salon will remain on Brook Street.. Mr. Divine said the project would be done in stages. The brick siding, similar to what is at Maria’s Subdivision Shop, will be brought around the corner and then there will be an area of fiber cement clap board siding which is durable. The DRC indicated that they thought the proposed material was a fine choice of material for the ground level. The exterior lighting will be recessed (shielded lighting) and the existing lighting will be prepared. Mr. Powers said he would like to have the area lit at night, especially the area down by the Satuit Brook.

Mr. Walter said, “I was at the DRC meeting on this project and there was a very favorable response.” Mr. Stokes of the DRC said, “I was not at the meeting but I understand that the other two DRC members had a favorable response to the project.”

.

Mr. Divine asked about the approval process and if there was an appeal period. Mr. Limbacher said that the usual appeal period is twenty days. Atty. J. DeLisi said that the site plan waiver is part of the building permit and there is a 30 day appeal of the building permit. The Board suggested that Mr. Divine speak with Neil Duggan, ZEO.

Mr. Fenton said, “Laura wants the lighting to be shielded. Have you thought about new signs? The signs should be coordinated as much as possible.” Mr. Divine said the signage would be coordinated and he said that Mr. Powers would prefer to have flat signs rather than hanging signs. Mr. Powers said that the owner of the Barker Bakery would like to have a sign like the one at Maria’s. He said that he would do the same type of signage for any new store that came into his building.

Mr. Powers said, “I have been here for 42 years. I will never rent to anyone who would be a detriment to what I already have.”

Mr. Duncan said, “I like the design and it really unifies that whole block.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Jim will do a good job.” Mr. Fenton asked, “Are there windows that will go away?” Mr. Powers said, “They are painted over now. That is the supply source area for Maria’s.” Mr. Fenton said, “So there are windows that go away and that becomes wall board on the other side of Zuki’s.”

The Chair called for public comment. There was none.

MOTION: Mr. Limbacher Moved to grant the Site Plan Waiver for 51 Front Street/1 & 3 Brook Street in accordance with the plans submitted. Mrs. Brennan Seconded the Motion. Discussion: Mr. Fenton asked if there should be a Condition about the lights being shielded. Mr. Walter said that information was on the drawings. Mr. Limbacher said that the Motion should reference the plans submitted. Mrs. Brennan asked that a Condition be added about the hours of construction. Mr. Limbacher said he would amend his Motion to include the standard condition about hours of construction.

AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Limbacher Moved to grant the Site Plan Waiver for 51 Front St reet/1 & 3 Brook Street in accordance with the plans submitted and with the standard Condition regarding hours of construction. Mrs. Brennan Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion. Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, and Mr. Duncan voted on the Motion.

SELECTION OF ATTORNEY FOR REVISION OF ZONING BYLAWS

This Agenda item was moved from 9:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Mr. Limbacher said, “I am thinking about that we may be able to secure additional funding so we can do more with the bylaw review – perhaps do the whole thing. Perhaps we can get the Selectmen to come up with some more money that could be added to the dollars that we have. I would like to suggest, and I am more than happy to do it, that we go through our liaison to the Selectmen (John Danehey) to see if they will pay for the entire enchilada as opposed to doing only some fraction thereof. This would make sure that we integrate what Planning is doing with Zoning and the Building Commissioner/ZEO.”

It was noted that there is approximately $10,000 in Planning Board money to do the update of the Zoning Bylaws. Mr. Fenton referred to the presentation by Atty. M. Bobrowski who indicated he could about half the work for the $10,000.

Mr. Limbacher said, “I will suggest, if you agree, that we pursue it. We should be able to get more for our money. If we make pretty significant changes it will be good to know the impact on other boards in town. It may mean that we expand the committee to include someone from the ZBA and the Building Commissioner.” Mr. Walter and Mr. Fenton agreed with Mr. Limbacher’s idea. Mr. Fenton said it would be good to have the ZBA actively involved and he thought the Board had already mentioned this to Mr. Danehey.

Mr. Limbacher said, “I will call John and talk to him (not put it in writing now). If it looks doable then we will formalize the process.”

Mr. Walter asked, “Do you think that we heard enough from both candidates (Mark Bobrowski, Barbara Saint Andre) to make a decision or should we call them back in for another interview?” The Board agreed that they had heard enough from those two candidates. The Secretary was asked to send an e-mail to the two candidates explaining that based on the discussion with them and the input received from them the Board is considering expanding the scope of the project.

The applicants, Rita Xu and Eva Xu, were present. Mr. H. Stokes, DRC, was present. Mr. Stokes said that he was not present at the DRC meeting on the application but was present at the walk-through of the site on September 5th.

Ms. Rita Xu said that she has a Masters Degree from Virginia Tech in architecture and she mentioned some other projects for Asian restaurants that she worked on in Andover, Cambridge, Swampscot and other places. Ms. Xu said, “We are really looking forward to bringing this kind of service to Scituate. For several years we have been actively looking for a site in Scituate. Two months ago we found this one. We would like to put up a small Asian takeout restaurant – suschi, Thai, and Chinese. We did zoning research and marketing research. It is an allowed use. The market research gave us very positive feedback. There is not too much Asian food in the area. Tonight we are very excited to be here.”

Mr. Walter said, “Really the discussion centers around the exhaust for the kitchen. You presented a duct which would come out over the top of cooking area and along the side of the building. [See photos in file.] This is the space between the Dry Cleaners and one of the main entrances to the building when you are on Brook St. The duct work that we are talking about will essentially go up between those two bay windows up to the roof by that white dormer there. Our discussion with DRC was about the impact on the building. The DRC said there may be something to do without going all the way up - perhaps on the side of the building – just have a louver on the side of the building. I think there is a code issue with that.”

Ms. Xu discussed various EPA codes and she also described the ventilation system that was done at Riva’s Restaurant, Front Street, when it was re-modeled. She said, “In the end it really comes down to the codes. So best solution is to have full height duct. We have to go above the roof.”

Mr. Fenton said, “Originally it was going up and out the side of the building here. So the actual main entrance will be on the parking lot side. The bay window looks into the kitchen area. So, as you just described, the duct comes out, as you look at it to the left of the bay window and then up behind the trunk of the tree.” Ms. Xu agreed.

Mr. Walter said, “Mike McGowan and Hal went there last evening with them to see if there was another potential solution. Part of the DRC’s question was – why can’t it go inside the building? Hal, would you explain how that discussion went last night.”

Mr. Stokes said, “Mike took measurements and thought for sure that physically it could be achieved. I was copied on the follow-up e-mail today. Again, he was pressing for that. I was also copied on your (Ms. Xu’s) reply and it appears that the landlord said that absolutely that would not be acceptable solution. Among the other items sited were: fire safety, perceived problems with the residents on the second and third floors. That is kind of where I think it stands at this point. The general feeling is that it is not a great solution to bring it out to the side and up on the Brook Street side as proposed.”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “Would it be possible to encase the duct work so it would have the appearance of a shingled false chimney?” Mr. Stokes replied, “I think it could be and we discussed that. We brought that up. The applicant said that if it was a condition that was required they could probably do that even so far as cladding the brick part in brick and then the part that goes up along the white dormer use vinyl siding or something appropriate. If you look at the drawing it is just a 16 x 16 shaft that is capped with one of those rotating metal fans. You would be looking at doing the best camouflage job.” Mrs. Brennan said, “Yes, the tree will only camouflage it for about five months of the year.”

Mr. Stokes said, “There is a brick sidewalk that is part of the building property. It is pretty dark in there. There is a great deal of ivy growing in that shaded brick are now. Obviously some of that ivy will have to be removed. It comes out at an 8’ height. They will exit as high up as they can. It won’t look like a chimney that is built down into a foundation. We also considered – what if it going out on parking lot side. Would that be anymore preferable? We raised that issue. The applicant may want to speak to that. I think they had some concerns about what that would look like from that side of the building. We (Mike and I) had no clear decision on that approach. We also discussed if you could go down underneath and out but the codes, I am told, do not allow that for this type of exhaust.”

Ms. Xu showed the Board some pictures of how duct work was handled in other restaurants e.g. at a Sudbury restaurant. She said, “I have had several e-mails with Mike and Mike seems to interested in having the ventilation inside of the building, but that is a potential fire hazard and that is very important. Over the years the duct can build up with grease so whenever possible restaurants want to put it on the outside of the building. So public safety is really important. So the duct should not be placed inside the building. The landlord wants it outside. Secondly, I emphasized – I have a 10 year lease with the landlord. The duct itself is 16 x 16 and must be made of non-combustible material. Not rational to make us do a lot of work for just 10 years. The other thing is that the building is fully occupied and landlord does not want to upset the existing tenants so he does not want to have us build something three stories in the building. The structural integrity of the building is important. As a designer myself – the possible solution is to put it outside and we will use similar materials E.g. second floor will be brick and third floor vinyl.”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “What is the objection to having it on parking lot side?” Ms. Xu replied, “The parking lot side is really the front side of the building. Also, the longer the duct the bigger it is.” Mr. Fenton said, “Because you are covering more distance the fan will have to be more powerful so the fan will have to be larger if you are making the duct longer.” Ms. Xu agreed.

Mrs. Brennan said, “Having lived here I have approached that building from both sides. When you pull into that parking lot #4 is to your left. When you get out of your vehicle the way you will look at that building (and see that vent) your eye does not travel up to what is immediately in front of you. However, if it is on the Brook Street/Front Street corner they will see on the front of that building what is really an oddity – something that is completely out of character and design. That is the entry to the Harbor. I would like it on the parking lot side. If it were encased it will just blend into the façade.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “If it is on the parking lot side it will still have to follow the contours.” Ms. Xu noted the location of existing bushes, mailboxes, trees, dumpsters.

Mr. Fenton asked, “Are you planning any other streetscape treatments – awnings, entry way, something around the doorway on the parking lot side? I am just trying to follow Pat’s thinking. Perhaps with an awing or an entry portal around the doorway. I am speaking of the parking lot side. I am sensitive to Pat’s observation that this building is entrance to the Harbor, particularly when that tree is not in foliage. It is only in foliage for a few months. Once that is down this will be fairly obvious. I am trying to imagine if there are treatments that will make it work a little better on the entry side.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Given the function the back of the building is really the front of the building.” Mr. Fenton added, “There are awnings over some of the windows.” Mr. Stokes said, “The main entrance is still on Brook Street.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “Where would it go on parking lot side?” Mr. Fenton replied, “The duct is on the side where the work station is. The duct would then have to come forward forty feet and then you could pop it out at the right of the door. That is why I was wondering about a treatment on the door/entryway that would take up the duct on that side of the building.”

Mr. Duncan said, “I have the same concerns. I want to maintain the integrity of the façade.”

Mx. Xu said, “The real situation is that on Brook Street now you see dumpsters and the back loading area of the Market.” Mr. Fenton said, “I will agree. That is one of my frustrations. When the parking lot for the grocery market was done I really wanted to see some changes made.” Ms. Xu said, “Our chimney is really not offensible.”

Mr. Walter said, “This is a four sided building. It really has no back It can be viewed from all sides. This will be a fire rated shaft The idea that it is a fire hazard – but it is no different than a chimney – less hazardous because we are talking about hot air. It is not like a furnace. If that is really off the table then it is off the table. The way I view it right now - I could never allow it to occur without seeing what it is going to look like. I am not sure how to make it better. The cladding may work but I can’t say okay with a condition of cladding without seeing it.” Mrs. Brennan said, “I am not sure that cladding is the answer.” Mr. Walter said, “There may be a creative solution. I don’t know.”

Mr. Stokes said, “I know that Mike was going to try to do something with a digital photo but he had to be out of town tonight. We don’t have a strong decision/recommendation to give you tonight. I think Mike still wanted to explore it digitally – photo shop or some thing.”

Mr. Limbacher asked about the space of the rooms above the proposed restaurant and Ms. Xu explained the areas above the proposed restaurants e.g. office space above is smaller.

Ms. Xu said, “It is not a huge building. It is 40’ deep. Just for 10 years any landlord will not want to have much structural disturbance.”

Mr. Walter said, “I am not getting a comfort feeling from the Board. I understand what you are saying that going inside is not acceptable. Is there another solution that we are not thinking about?”

Mr. Fenton said, “In general I would like to see this use (Mr. Walter agreed) but I agree that it would be helpful to have a visual rendering. I am always impressed with the power of being able to see something. It might be with some renderings …. I would like to see over time the Brook Street streetscape improved. I would like to see those dumpsters moved and the market loading dock better shielded. I don’t want to do anything to make it worse on the Brook Street side because I think that is an important face of the building an for the town. There will be some improvements made to the opposite side of the street. I hope that will be beneficial to your business. I do want to find a way to make this work.”

The members mentioned some possible scenarios which included working with existing tenants to allow the ducting to go through their space. Mr. Walter said that the codes would not allow certain arrangements. Ms. Xu again said that the landlord would not give permission to disturb other tenants.

Mr. Limbacher said, “I am trying to figure out if it goes out front and over the bay window where does it go.” Mr. Fenton said, “That is where a visual rendering/elevation would help. I think that was what Mike was going to try to do digitally.” Mr. Stokes said that Mr. McGowan took some pictures of the site.

Mr. Fenton asked for clarification about some of the codes and Ms. Xu described what was permitted for restaurant use under the required codes.

Mr. Walter said, “I think that we do agree that it is a good use but this is a bad solution for the exhaust (as currently presented). So we should try to come up with something more acceptable as opposed to denying it.” Mr. Limbacher replied, “I don’t want to deny it. Maybe Mike has another way to look at it. It would be good to see what it looks like.”

Mr. Fenton said, “Given it is a waiver – we want a rendering of what it will really look like before we vote on it. Whatever happens I want to see an elevation e.g. brick to here, then clapboard. I think there is a possible solution. We need to see a rendering of it and we need to know on what side of the building it will be placed. I don’t want to vote no tonight.” Mr. Walter said, “Try to take away our imagination and make it as real as possible. Give us a true sense of what it will be.”

Mr. Fenton said, “It is good to have an on-going dialogue with the DRC. I depend heavily on their recommendation.” Mr. Stokes said, “We meet again in two weeks.

We have tried to help other applicants. We could maybe come up with a couple of renderings to help you make your determination.” Mr. Fenton said, “We would like to have your recommendation.”

Mr. Walter said, “So you will continue to work with the DRC.” Ms. Xu agreed.

MOTION: Mr. Limbacher Moved to continue the discussion on the Site Plan Waiver for 4 Brook Street to September 27 at 7:30 P.M. Mrs. Brennan Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion. Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, and Mr. Duncan voted on the Motion.

FORM A PLAN 33 TICHNOR PLACE/TILDEN ROAD. Applicants: William & Linda Kochman. Owners: William & Linda Kochman; Valley Pasture Realty Trust, William Kochman * James Kochman, Tr. Kochman, Trustees

Mr. & Mrs. Kochman were present along with their attorney, Michael Hayes.

Atty. Hayes said, “You are likely more familiar with this property from the Tilden Road side. Their current legal address is Tichnor Place but there is an entrance from Tilden. Their proposal is to create a new lot to the north of their existing home. They will share a common driveway. We will come back to the Board for that. We are presently going to ZBA for the right to build the home on the second lot at the far end of Tichnor. We know that with a Form A we don’t get any zoning relief. We have three steps – ZBA, Conservation Comm., and then back to the Planning Board.”

Mr. Walter asked, “Does anyone have specific questions about frontage?” Atty. Hayes said, “With the existing home we have maintained the required frontage other than what a 50’ lot frontage might be. The new lot to the north of it is a 50’ lot. The lot with the existing home on it meets all dimensional requirements. The lot in the back on Tichnor (behind the existing house, or in front of it if you are looking at it from Tichnor) has twice the lot size.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “Are you doing anything with Lot 3? Here is Lot 1 and here is Lot 3.” Atty. Hayes replied, “ Lot 3 is the proposed 50’ lot that we are going to the ZBA for zoning relief. The entrance is here. Then we will come back to the Planning Board with a common driveway for those two lots.” Mr. Limbacher said, “So it will be a two lot common driveway.”

Mr. Limbacher put the plan up on the board and reviewed the various lots on the plan, along with their frontages, and access points. Atty. Hayes noted the location of the proposed common driveway.

Mr. Limbacher asked, “So the two lot common driveway will serve the existing house and the lot to the north of it. Correct?” Atty. Hayes said that was correct. Mr. Fenton referred to the length of a common driveway under the Bylaw (600’).

Mr. Walter asked if there were any concerns about Tichnor Place e.g. width. Mr. Fenton replied, “The concern about the access – it is pretty narrow. What is the actual measurement?” Mr. Limbacher replied, “It is about 8 ½ feet.” Mrs. Brennan said, “Maybe 9 feet.” Mr. Limbacher described the access on Tichnor Place. Mr. Fenton said, “Currently the existing structure has access.” Mr. Kochman said, “I think it is 12 feet.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I think it is more like 9 feet. You can successfully argue that he can get into his house now.” Mr. Fenton added, “Yes, and they have a wonderful driveway off of Tilden Road.”

Atty. Hayes said, “The plan is to access the existing home and new lot through the common driveway. He now has legal access to his home now.”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “What becomes of Lot 4?” Atty. Hayes replied, “The current plan is to offer it to the Conservation Commission.”

Mr. Kochman showed the Board the area that may be given to the Conservation Commission and said that perhaps someday it could be a walkway to Harbor if other neighbors agree. Atty. Hayes said, “The potential to build there is remote as it is swamp and wetlands.”

Mr. Duncan said, “No questions. With that stipulation that Lot 1 would be accessible, which it already is on Tichnor Place and with the common driveway I think it will qualify.”

Atty. Hayes said, “We are hoping that the Conservation Commission does not change the layout of the common driveway. We will know that shortly and we will then get an application back to you.”

The Chair asked if there was any comments from the public. There were no comments.

Mr. Fenton said, “Our Planner, who could not be present this evening, suggested denying it because of legal access. I acknowledge that there is an access there now. It is grandfathered but do we want to keep that. The further argument is that the existing house now accesses over Tilden Road. The fire trucks can use Tilden Road.

Mr. Walter asked, “How long has the access been there from Tilden Road?” Mr. Kochman replied, “About 4 years.”

Mr. Fenton said, “We need to acknowledge Laura’s argument.” Mr. Limbacher said, “I drove up there with my car with no problem.” Mr. Limbacher described how he accessed the property with his car.

MOTION: Mr. Limbacher Moved to endorse as Approval Under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required a plan of land in the Town of Scituate located at 33 Tichnor Place and Tilden Road. Plan prepared by Moran Surveying, Inc. and dated July 23, 200-7. Owner/Applicant: William & Linda Kochman; William & James Kochman, Trs.

Mrs. Brennan Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion. Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, and Mr. Duncan voted in favor of the Motion.

The applicant’s attorney, J. DeLisi of Ohrenberger Associates was present along with P. Mirabito of Ross Engineering Co. See sign-in list for names of others present for this item.

Atty. DeLisi said, “In order to improve our plan for the development of the property we have reconfigured the lines. I know you are familiar with it. You have endorsed other ANR plans for this property. I will be happy to answer your questions.”

The Chair asked for clarification. Mr. Mirabito showed the Board the various lot configurations on the new plan and in response to a question from Mr. Fenton he said that the rattails on the plan were there to obtain the required square footage. Mr. Mirabito also informed the Board that there was an ANR plan done for the property before Mr. Harrington bought the property. That plan was endorsed by the Board.

Mr. Fenton said, “On an ANR the criteria is just frontage and access. They have frontage for every one and they are all on Rte. 3A. This is not part of any of the on-going court cases regarding the Harrington property. If someone else owned the property they could bring in this Form A. It could be a brand new owner. I have to say this for the record. This is a classic example – this is where I think the whole Form A process fails. This is an Approval Not Required Plan which means that the applicant is not doing a subdivision. So there is no drainage etc. I will admit that he does have a lot of frontage and lots of square feet. With creative line drawing he can get the 80,000 S.F. This does speak to the short comings of the ANR. It is a development which results in a lack of oversight by the Town. We have no say.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “That is why we went from here to a Flexible to common driveways.”

Mr. Walter said, “We went from this to a definitive subdivision, to a Flexible Open Space, to common driveways and now we are back to where we were before.”

Mr. Fenton said, “I just want to say that for the record but we know what our legal obligation is.”

Mr. Walter asked if there were any questions/comments from the public. There were none.

Mr. Limbacher asked Atty. DeLisi, “Have you applied for curb cuts?” Atty. Jeff DeLisi replied, “Yes, and we have the eight cuts.”

MOTION: Mr. Fenton Moved to endorse as Approval Under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required a plan of land in the Town of Scituate located at Chief Justice Cushing Highway. Plan prepared by Ross Engineering Co., Inc. and dated July 31, 2007. Owner/Applicant: Seven H. Trust. Mr. Limbacher Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion. Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, and Mr. Duncan voted on the Motion. Mrs. Chisholm was absent.

DISCUSSION/ACTION BEECH TREE FARM SURETY

The Town is presently holding a $100,000 Performance Bond which expires September 20, 2007 as surety.

Atty. M. Hayes said, “I represent Tom Stone and Kevin Sealund. They have since sold the entire subdivision. They did the road and the infrastructure and put up the surety for it. There are two lots left to be built on. I have been told by everyone that the only remaining work is the final coat of paving. The DPW likes to wait until all lots are sold and built on but given the market conditions they would like to get the final pavement done before the asphalt plants close this winter. Tom Stone is talking to DPW about this and they will get Paul Scott’s approval so they can do it soon. Things seem to be going well up there. So we want to extend it for another year. The current trustee, Mr. Gacey, owns the last two lots. He is the man that bought all the lots. I am trying to prod him along to get the owner/trustees set up up there.

The Secretary said that Atty. Hayes has assured her that the new bond will be submitted prior to the September 20th date when the existing bond expires.

Motion: Upon receipt (prior to September 20, 2007) of a new Performance Bond of $100,000 with an expiration date of September 20, 2008, the Planning Board hereby Moves to extend the surety (Performance Bond of $100,000) presently being held for completion of the Beech Tree Farm Subdivision to September 20, 2008.

Motion duly Moved by Mr. Limbacher, Seconded by Mr. Fenton, and voted unanimously.

ACCOUNTING: motion duly Moved by Mr. Limbacher, Seconded by Mr. Fenton, and voted unanimously to pay the following:

Comprehensive Environmental ($1400.00) for consultant review of Theresa Estates. Larry Koff & Associates ($3,000) for consulting services re Humarock Zoning.
W. B. Mason ($105.36) for office supplies.
W. B. Mason ($6.18) for office supplies.

COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE: Mr. Limbacher said, “As the liaison to the Committee. I am putting together a five year plan. I am asking the boards that are represented on the Committee to give me their ideas for the use of the CPA money over the next five years. So please put together your thoughts and we can discuss it at our next meeting. I am particularly interested in doing something on affordable housing. Perhaps something about inclusionary zoning. It could be part of the housing component. That would be a betterment for the town. It would be better to have something coming from the Planning Board and not just from me.” Mr. Fenton said, “ Affordable housing -that is the kind of thing I really want to hear about.”

Time will be scheduled on the September 27th Planning Board meeting to discuss this.

MOTION TO ADJOURN: Motion duly Moved, Seconded, and voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:30 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Merrilyn O’Brien, Secretary

_________________________ Mary Patricia Brennan, Clerk

_________________________ Date Approved