MOTION by Mr. Leavitt, SECOND by Mr. Trafton and UNANIMOUSLY VOTED 5-0 to accept the agenda as submitted.

Update on Softball Field at High School; Mr. Wait updated the committee on the proposed softball field in front of the High School. Mr. Sharry, Mr. Wait, Ms. Vitelli and a representative from the M R Survey company met with Mr. Cafferty, of the Scituate DPW. Mr. Wait reported that Mr. Cafferty felt that the wetlands area in question couldn’t be a vernal pool and a detention basin at the same time. Mr. Wait explained that a detention basin takes drainage whether it’s piped or overland flow and detains it until it reaches a certain height and then lets it flow out versus a retention basin has no place for the water to flow out. The area in question is a detention basin because it builds up to a level of a pipe down by the fire station and flow out into a drainage system. Mr. Wait further reported that at the time of the meeting with Mr. Cafferty a contract had been granted to M R Survey to go ahead and perform the ANRAD, which it should be finished in a couple of weeks. This report will generate a hearing with the Conservation Commission and abutters must be notified. Additionally, Mr. Cafferty suggested that if the softball field was built near wetland/vernal pool the Recreation Commission should go for the biggest size they can, sighting by the time you construct home plate and a backstop along with an outfield you have used between 150-200 feet toward the wetland/vernal pool. Rip rap could be installed and a portion of the area could be altered and replicated. Mr. Bulman reminded the members that when the application was approved it was for a regulation softball field and there were questions about distances. Also the field wasn’t to be built strictly for girls; it was to be for men as well. He asked for a clarification of the regulation. Mr. Bulman also questioned the Recreation Commission’s budget for the project. The approved application amount didn’t allow for the extensive costs associated with replicating the wetland/vernal pool area. Mr. Bulman reiterated the position of the CPC that it is a Conservation Commission issue at this point. The Conservation Commission must sign off on the project in order for CPC to release the funds. Mr. Bulman suggested that if the new CPA regulations before the legislature were approved the Recreation Commission should consider going back to the original plan of building the ball field at Cushing School. Mr. Sharry stated that the Cushing sight posses a different set of environmental issues due to the number of trees that would have to be removed. Discussion continued between Mr. Sharry, Mr. Wait and Mr. Bulman as to where the field might be constructed. Mr. Leavitt voiced his favor placing the field in front of the high school. Mr. Bulman restated that the project was approved for the front of the high school; he only mentioned going back to the Cushing School location because he thought that idea had been abandoned because it didn’t meet the CPA guidelines. Mr. Trafton questioned where things stood with the vernal pool, and did the Conservation Commission have the authority to allow the wetland/vernal pool to be altered and replicated? He was informed that they did. Mr. Wood stated that the application that was presented and ultimately approved was for a center field that would be 230 feet. He doesn’t feel that a center field of that size will fit. Secondly, he said that Mr. Richardson’s report stated that this is a very unusual vernal pool that should be protected. Mr. Bulman stated that whether or not individual members of the CPC agree or disagree with the project, to alter and replicate the vernal pool or not is not the jurisdiction of the CPC. The vote taken clearly stated if the Conservation Commission approves the project then the CPA funds will be released. Mr. Wood feels that if the committee had Mr. Richardson’s report prior to the vote the outcome may have been different. Mr. Bulman emphasized that the vote specifically said that an order of conditions must be received from the Conservation Commission. He also said that Mr. Wood was absolutely correct and the vote was for a center field of 230 feet. Mr. Wait will return to the CPC with and update after the Conservation Commission hearing.

Proposed Legislation to CPA Guidelines; Mr. Bulman’s understanding is the legislation may pass and if it doesn’t pass by June 30th it will be another year before it come up again. Mr. Hedlund asked for information on projects that would be in the queue if there were increased flexibility. Mr. Sharry and Ms. Vitelli presented Mr. Hedlund with a list of projects to the CPC which includes the playground by the high school. Mr. Bulman will send a letter of support for the projects to Mr. Hedlund as well.

Old Business

Mr. Bulman informed the members that he had contacted Mr. Falconer to do an appraisal on the Bates House and the Mirarchi property.

MOTION by Mr. Leavitt, SECOND by Mr. Bulman and UNANIMOUSLY VOTED 5-0 to adjourn the meeting.