I. CALL TO ORDER - 7:05 p.m.
II. AGENDA
III. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES
MOTION to Accept the Minutes by Mr. Scott, for the Meeting Minutes dated January 9, 2011, SECONDED by Mr. Fenton.
IV. GENERAL DISCUSSION
Update from Selectmen: Mr. Bulman introduced Mr. Norton and Mr. Murray and thanked them for joining the meeting. Mr. Norton spoke about plans for possible projects for the coming year. Mr. Norton discussed the possibility of doing something with the condition of the Gates Junior High School, indicating the Selectmen are awaiting the results of a feasibility study involving this building and for the Town Hall complex. Mr. Norton spoke about the condition of both buildings and how the disrepair has become an embarrassment to the Town of Scituate. Mr. Norton said that there are other possible projects , including the property where St. Frances church is located, and that may become available, as well as a recreational facility that is in the early stages of being considered. Mr. Norton is asking the CPC to take into consideration the importance and size of these potential future projects, so that the funds may be available to assist the Town. Mr. Bulman responded commenting that the Committee solicits input from other Town boards during the application process regarding their future plans and projects and that the purpose of soliciting this input is so that the Committee can be sure that they are aware of any prioritization and possible future projects in making current funding recommendations. Mr. Murray reiterated Mr. Norton’s comments about municipal buildings and elaborated on the idea of addressing all at once instead of all separately and at different times at a much greater expense and inefficiency. Mr. Murray stated that the problems are creating a domino effect and that is why the Selectmen are approaching Town committees to help them get the word out and support what they are proposing. Mr. Vegnani elaborated on what both Mr. Norton and Mr. Murray had stated. Mr. Vegnani spoke of the “big picture” plan, the moving pieces to the plan, and the fact that, if implemented, it is going to cost the Town a significant amount of money. Mr. Vegnani stated that CPC happens to possess significant funding and that CPA funding might be an important piece of funding for any such projects. As the Selectmen look into projects, Mr. Vegnani said that they would be coming to the committees for help, especially CPC. Mr. Bulman informed the Committee that he had spoken with Mr. Vegnani last week and about the direct impact on the softball field that is being presented for funding, if a larger master plan project is being contemplated for the Town Hall/High School site. Mr. Murray discussed that the Selectmen desired that this plan move forward sooner rather than later. Mr. Murray stated that the Selectmen are not asking that CPC wait or put anything on hold for them, just keep it in mind when voting on projects. Mr. Vegnani said that as soon as the feasibility study is performed and the Town finds out what Gates can be used for, then there can be a direction for the next few projects, and to get everything aligned so that it can be in front of the Town, hopefully within the next year and possibly as the subject of a fall Special Town Meeting. Mr. Bulman stated that he and Mr. Vegnani had discussed the fact that CPC cannot fund buildings and is restricted by allowable CPA guidelines, but that there may be recreational fields and historical aspects of the Gates restoration that will appear that CPC can consider funding, the cost of which will not be insignificant to the projects as a whole. Mr. Bulman stated that he had invited the Selectmen to attend after his recent telephone call with Mr. Vegnani, so that the Committee could hear what the proposed plans and consider any such input as they deem advisable in their recommendations for funding. Mr. Vegnani added that the “million dollar plan” would only include a small piece from CPC, but it is something that he feels the residents of Scituate would support, within the bigger project. Mrs. Fenton asked Mr. Vegnani when he would hear back from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in regards to priority of the Middle School funding. Mr. Vegnani said that the application was just renewed in the last month. Mr. Vegnani also said that they would not hear back until there was a plan in place, and as of right now, there is no plan. Mrs. Fenton then asked what the scope of the plan was and what is the staging process or timeline. Mr. Vegnani said that the Town is on the list and that the need for Gates repair is a definite necessity. Mr. Vegnani is hoping that the timeline of the project is hopefully within the next 5 years. Mr. Murray, being speculative, stated that all of this is based on the plan being approved by the Town. If Gates gets renovated extensively, that piece needs to be phased, and all of the Town offices that will be affected. The Police and Fire still need to operate, the school needs to operate, and other smaller town offices need to operate. All of this is a part of a plan that would be something to vote on as a whole at a special town meeting. Mr. Bulman thanked the Selectmen for joining us and providing the Committee with their input.
V. REVIEW FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Mr. Bulman went over the process and the adjustments for the evening’s votes on applications, and stated that the total pending applications for consideration totaled $1,112,000.00. Mr. Bulman presented a spreadsheet to the members breaking the applications and amounts by categories and explained that if CPC spends less than $1,250,000.00 of revenue projected for FY 2013 from CPC surcharges and state matching funds, the reserves and general fund will go up based on the delta, and conversely, if the Committee recommends and the Town approves more than the revenue amount, the reserves and fund balances will decrease by the delta. The spreadsheet presented the effect on the various reserves and fund balances if all applications were recommended for funding. Mr. Bulman re-stated that the message from the Selectmen is that they would like to see our general fund go up and that this information is presented only as a factor for the members to weigh and consider in their discretion in making their recommendations and evaluation of applications for funding.
VI. FINAL REVIEW AND VOTES ON APPLICATIONS
1.
Jenkins Property: Mr. Bulman asked Mrs. Fenton, the liaison for the project, if the application is being withdrawn. Mrs. Fenton stated it was being postponed. Mr. Bulman noted that there was no one present representing the applicant. Mrs. Fenton stated she spoke with Mary Jenkins and that they have not heard back from some of their supporting groups, so they would like to withdraw for this year. Mr. Limbacher would like to see a formal letter stating the withdrawal. Mr. Limbacher felt it was in the hands of the applicant to withdraw. Since no withdrawal was in hand, a motion was made.
MOTION not to recommend the Scituate Heritage Preserve for funding, in the amount of $1,200,000.00, by Mr. Scott, SECONDED by Mr. Limbacher, and there being no further discussion, UNANIMOUSLY VOTED 6-0 to NOT TO RECOMMEND the application as submitted.
2.
SAA Ellis House: Application for $3,000.00 for restoration to the Ellis House.
MOTION to Recommend the SAA Ellis House for funding, in the amount of $3,000.00, by Mr. Scott, SECONDED by Mr. Lane. Discussion followed:
Mr. Snow stated it was money well spent.
Mr. Scott agreed and stated that the applicant does what is asked and their application is very thorough.
Mr. Bulman stated that even though he agrees that they have done a great job, SAA has come to the CPC in the past obtaining approval for plans and recognition by Mass Historical and the National Register so that the Ellis House would qualify for and obtain grants for restoration from sources other than the Town. In a previous application for restoration funds, the Historical Commission did not prioritize the restoration project and the Committee had viewed it as one the own could not afford, hence the decision to assist the SAA in qualifying for funding from other sources. This was the basis that the last 2 funding applications for the Ellis House had been presented to and approved by the Committee and the Town. Mr. Bulman felt that the current application was physical restoration and inconsistent with the representations made to obtain prior funding for the historical register and a preservation plan, as prerequisites to obtaining grant funding. He stated that he felt that actually starting the restoration with CPC funds was contrary to prior approvals and representations and was starting down a slippery slope on a project that the Town clearly could not afford to complete, especially given many other priorities. Mr. Bulman applauded the efforts by SAA, but does not support funding the restoration in any amount absent grant funding.
Mrs. Fenton stated that she felt that they were very clear to state that the application was for restoration, not maintenance. She also said that there are a large number of people putting in their own time and money into the maintenance of the building, so CPC money would help with defer some costs to the restoration piece. She is in support.
Mr. Gates concurred with Mrs. Fenton.
Mr. Lane had no comment.
Mr. Limbacher stated that he shared the Mr. Bulman’s concerns. However he also felt as though it presented a dilemma since the small amount for restoration would show a large return as it would protect and preserve the property.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 6-1, with Mr. Bulman dissenting, to RECOMMEND the application for funding as submitted.
3.
Kent Street Maytime Trust: MOTION NOT to Recommend the Kent Street Maytime Trust for funding, in the amount of $124,100.00 by Mr. Limbacher, SECONDED by Mr. Lane. Discussion followed.
Mr. Snow does not see how this connects to any benefit to the people of Scituate.
Mr. Scott did not support the project.
Mr. Bulman did not support the project.
Mrs. Fenton stated that she agrees that the parcel is a beautiful piece of property, unique to Scituate, but that she does not believe it is appropriate for community funding.
Mr. Gates sees no advantage in the Town owning this property.
Mr. Lane stated that the applicant wants to preserve his rights to prune and cut vegetation on a piece of property that he wants the Town to purchase and maintain. Mr. Lane does not support the project.
Mr. Limbacher did not support the project.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 7-0 to NOT TO RECOMMEND the application as submitted.
4.
Justice William Cushing Dallin Plaque: MOTION to Recommend the Justice William Cushing Dallin Plaque for funding, in the amount of $14,680.00, by Mr. Gates, SECONDED by Mrs. Fenton. Discussion followed.
Mr. Snow felt it was a great project.
Mr. Bulman added that the value of the plaque alone, presented by the Historical Society as $40,000, and the fact that the plaque is to be conveyed to the Town as part of the application and project, was a benefit to the Town far greater than the cost, not even considering the historical importance.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND the application as submitted.
5.
Scituate Lighthouse Books: MOTION to Recommend the Scituate Lighthouse Books for funding, in the amount of $6,670.00, by Mr. Limbacher, SECONDED by Mr. Lane. Discussion followed.
Mr. Snow felt it was a worthy application that people in Town would appreciate for many years.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND the application as submitted.
6.
Old Oaken Bucket House: MOTION to Recommend the Old Oaken Bucket House for funding, in the amount of $20,000.00, by Mrs. Fenton, SECONDED by Mr. Scott. Discussion followed.
Mr. Snow felt it was a good idea to support.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND the application as submitted.
7.
Appleton Field Boundary: Mr. Snow, representing the Conservation Commission as the applicant, notified the Committee that the application was being withdrawn.
8.
Hunter’s Pond Dam: Mr. Bulman, liaison for the project, stated that he had spoken to the representative of the applicant, Ms. Penny Scott-Pipes, and the applicant has decided to postpone the application until she has more information, requesting that it be deferred and not withdrawn, possibly for consideration at a special Town meeting if the applicant could reach certain agreements with the property owner. The application was deferred and no vote was taken by the Committee.
9.
Hollett Street Assessors Parcel: MOTION NOT to Recommend the Hollett Street Assessors Parcel for funding, in the amount of $12,000.00 by Mr. Lane, SECONDED by Mr. Gates. Discussion followed:
Mr. Snow stated that the Conservation Commission has had discussions that they were hopeful as it is a piece of wetlands that is worth preserving at some point, just not at this number.
Mr. Bulman stated that Mr. Snow could support a lower number and ask the Committee to vote on the lesser amount. Mr. Bulman stated it was 2.75 acres of land.
Mr. Snow said he would propose maybe $5,000.00 - $7,000.00.
Mr. Bulman asked Mr. Snow if he wanted to amend the application.
Mr. Snow agreed to amend: MOTION to Ammend the Hollett Street Assessors Parcel for funding, in the amount of $2,000.00 an acre by Mr. Snow, SECONDED by Mr. Gates. Discussion followed:
Mrs. Fenton asked about the possibility of the pump station. Mr. Lane stated that if the property goes into the care of Conservation, then there is no possibility for a sewer pump station. Mr. Bulman said a water pump station would be allowable under his understanding of the conservation restrictions he had seen. Mr. Limbacher wanted Mr. Snow to state the benefits to the Town of the parcel again. Mr. Snow felt as though it abuts private property that he feels people tend to use for their own use that as a Town we should be able to prohibit and protect, and that it was worth owning on that basis. Mr. Gates asked about the pump station. Mr. Bulman stated that potentially a sewer line could cross the land, but that the conservation restrictions he had seen would not allow the construction of a sewer lift station. Mr. Snow stated that there is already a sewer line that runs the length of the railroad bed. Mr. Scott stated that there needed to be a station at the intersection of Mann Lot and Hollett Street, general area, as there is already a plan for the station itself. Mr. Bulman said that it just isn’t something that he has done at this point, but that EEA might be open to allowing a sewer lift station, since sewer does ultimately protect water supply.
There being no further discussion, the AMENDED project was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND the application in the amount of the lesser of (i) $2,000.00 per acre, not to exceed $5,500, or (ii) fair market value as determined by appraisal.
10.
Teak Sherman Community Garden: MOTION to Recommend the Teak Sherman Community Garden for funding, in the amount of $1,500.00, by Mr. Snow, SECONDED by Mrs. Fenton. Discussion followed.
Mr. Bulman, the project liaison, stated that he fully supported the project as it supports the community and the Scituate Food Pantry. He also stated that the funding requested was for expansion of the garden into a new area and qualified for CPA funding since it was no t for operation or maintenance, but for a qualified recreational use.
Mrs. Fenton is also in support as she feels as though anything that can be supported for the local growers is a great project.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND the application as submitted.
11.
Softball Field: MOTION to Recommend the Scituate Recreation Softball Field for funding, in the amount of $104,000.00, by Mr. Scott, SECONDED by Mr. Lane. Discussion followed.
Mr. Snow felt as thought it was a worthy project that to complete, is going to require a little more money. He is in favor of the project.
Mr. Scott is in support of the project. Mr. Scott stated that it has the support of the Police and Fire and other Town offices. He would like to see it completed.
Mr. Bulman also supported the project. However, he now has a concern because the Selectmen have come before the Committee with their proposals/plans regarding the Town Hall/High School site, where the project is located. Mr. Bulman does not want to see the field torn up if the Town Hall reconfiguration affects its location. Mr. Scott does not feel that it will be an issue. The playground is also a piece of the project. Mr. Bulman stated that the playground is more portable and the equipment can be moved, while a field is more site work and cannot be picked up and placed elsewhere. Mr. Bulman stated that ultimately, the vote stands with the Selectmen since they control the relocation of the roads and ways necessary for the softball field to be constructed as presented to the Committee. Mr. Bulman addressed Mr. Norton with the question. Mr. Norton agreed that they support the softball field and that the Selectmen will work with the Recreation Committee. The proposed facilities from the Selectmen will take into account the softball field and its location as they are doing the engineering and feasibility studies. Mr. Norton stated that all are in agreement that it will stay in the proposed location. Mr. Bulman wanted to amend the application so that it states that nothing will be done until the Selectmen solidify their plan, so that the field that is being funded, is not then torn up with the future projects at Town Hall/High School site. Mr. Norton felt as though the studies and engineering will be done prior to construction of the field.
Mr. Bulman has a motion to AMEND to proposal. Mrs. Fenton SECONDED. Mr. Limbacher is concerned with the Amendment postponing the project another year, which would invariably increase the cost of the project, which would bring the application back to the table for more funding. Mr. Lane stated that even if the Town were to tear down the Town Hall / Fire and Police Departments, they would not be building anything where the field is positioned. Mr. Lane felt that where everyone has approved the field, the Town would need to work around it. Mr. Harris spoke to the site work done by the engineer on the Recreation Committee being able to speak to Mr. Limbacher’s question. Erik Richman spoke to the Committee about how he felt that an amendment wasn’t necessary because the concept proposed bringing everything together. All of the input and effort will work with the Town plan. The Selectmen know that the engineering will be coordinated. Mr. Bulman withdrew his amendment expressing that functionally, the Recreation Commission would have to coordinate with the Selectmen to gain approvals they needed to construct, so that the amendment was not really necessary. Mr. Harris confirmed that Traffic Regulations has approved the project. Mr. Bulman commended the Recreation Commission for their work on the project and assured Mr. Harris that he was speaking in best interest in the Town. The flow of the project works. Mr. Roberts, Scituate Recreation Commission spoke to the extension of the project, which gives them a year to begin the project. This way it gives the Selectmen time to solidify their plans as well.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND the application in the amount of $104,000.
MOTION to Extend the Deadline for the Commencement of the Scituate Recreation Softball Field Project, for a period of three years to June 30, 2015, by Mr. Bulman, SECONDED by Mrs. Fenton. The extension was VOTED 6-0, with Mr. Scott abstaining.
12.
Higgins MacAllister Property: MOTION to Recommend the Maxwell Trust Application for funding, in the amount of $527,000.00, by Mr. Snow, SECONDED by Mrs. Fenton. Discussion followed: 31 acres of land.
Mr. Bulman Made a Motion to amend the Recommendation for approval to an amount of $550,000, adding an additional $23,000.00 for surveying and legal fees.
Mr. Snow feels as though that this piece fits so well with the other parcels that have been purchased. It is the last piece of uplands towards Booth Hill Road. It would complete the trail system. He would hate to see it get passed over by the Town and be further developed.
Mr. Scott is concerned about the water resources rating, since it was given a low water resource rating by the Water resources Commission.
Mrs. Fenton stated that yes; it is low on the water scale, but very high on the habitat preservation.
Mr. Gates is conflicted as well due to the low water rating and because the Town Selectmen have just asked that CPC keep in mind the upcoming projects.
Mr. Lane agrees it fits with all that this Committee has been working on since it started. Even though it is low on the water scale, there are other reasons that he feels it is a viable purpose.
Mr. Limbacher feels that this parcel is the best piece of property in the area.
Mr. Bulman stated that it is now really what he feels is the final piece of the puzzle. He also stated that he believed the Committee should apply for a LAND grant for this acquisition, which could potentially return to the Town almost 50 –60 % of the funding back through LAND grants. There is no guarantee that any grant application will be approve or funded.
Mr. Snow added that the water does flow with possible well areas down the road. Maybe we should be thinking that this is a potential site for water resources.
Mr. Bulman agreed.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND the application for funding in the total amount of $550,000, with the land being purchased for a sum equal to the lesser of (i) $17,000 per acre, not to exceed $527,000; or (ii) fair market value as determined by appraisal, plus $23,000 for legal, appraisal, LAND grant application, and related costs.
Mr. Scott went on record stating he will support the application and let the Town decide if they want to spend the money to support the purchase.
13.
Henry Turner Bailey Road: Mr. Ohrenberger spoke to the Committee on Mr. Sieminski’s behalf, stating that in light of what the Selectmen have just brought to the meeting that the Sieminski’s would be in favor of a lesser amount on the application, if that is what the Committee deems appropriate.
Mr. Lane asked Mr. Bulman about the value of the land being similar to the value of the land on Hollett Street and asked if the Sieminski’s would consider $2,000.00 per acre. Mr. Bulman stated that the committee could vote to recommend a lesser funding amount or offer to the applicant, and that after such a vote, Mr. Bulman could communicate with the applicant’s attorney and see if such an offer was acceptable.
MOTION to RECOMMEND the Henry Turner Bailey Road application for funding in the amount of $2,000 per acre for a total not to exceed to $8,200.00 by Mr. Snow, SECONDED by Mr. Gates for discussion. Discussion followed.
Mr. Bulman stated he told Mr. Ohrenberger that the Committee could vote on a lesser amount and that the Committee would see if the applicant was amenable to such a lower sales price prior to Town Meeting.
Mr. Snow feels as though there is a little more value to the property. The Bound Brook is the next piece of land looking for water resource. The drainage at Bound Brook is the next water source needing to be looked at.
Mr. Snow proposed an Amendment to increase the price of the application.
MOTION to AMEND the Henry Turner Bailey Road application for recommended funding, in the amount of $20,000.00, SECONDED by Mr. Limbacher.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND funding in the amount of the lesser of (i) $5,000 per acre not to exceed a total of $20,000; or (ii) fair market value as determined by appraisal.
14.
Bates Lane Parking Area: MOTION to Recommend the Bates Lane Parking Area for funding, in the amount of $50,000.00, by Mr. Snow, SECONDED by Mrs. Fenton. Discussion followed.
Mr. Snow stated that the parking would be for Bates Lane, Higgins MacAllister and possibly the Hennessey property. Mr. Bulman agreed.
Mrs. Fenton asked for clarification on the additional funding.
Mr. Bulman explained the additional funding recommended for the McAllister property was for surveying, legal and other purposes, not parking, and that the increase in funding for the project, was based on funding for not only a parking area on bates Lane, B=but also an area near Hollycrest, since the Committee had voted to recommend funding of the purchase of the Higgins McAllister parcel off Hollycrest.
Mr. Bjorklund addressed the Committee asking if there was a particular piece of property on Bates Lane that would be considered for the parking area.
Mr. Snow explained the proposed location of the parking area had not been exactly determined, but indicated the general area being considered.
Mr. Bjorklund stated that he might want to sell his parcel off of Bates Lane in the future so he was questioning the location.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND funding of $50,000 for the application, to include a parking area for the Higgins McAlister parcel.
15.
Hick’s Swamp – Nicholas Wade Preserve: MOTION to Recommend the Nicholas Wade Preserve application, in the amount of $213,500 by Mr. Limbacher, SECONDED by Mr. Lane. Discussion followed.
Mr. Snow supports the project, as the land should be preserved.
Mr. Bulman stated that the applicant changed the price per acre form the initial application at assessed value.
Mr. Bulman stated that he was inclined to amend the recommendation to $5,000.00 per acre,
Mr. Wood – 45 Oakhurst Road, Scituate. Mr. Wood stated that the Mirachi Property worked out to be $7,000.00 an acre, rather than what Mr. Bulman had recalled as $5,000 per acre. Therefore, he felt that $7,000.00 an acre was appropriate to offer the Litchfield Family.
MOTION by Mr. Bulman to AMEND the recommendation for funding Nicholas Wade Preserve application, in the lesser of (i) $5,000.00 per acre not to exceed $152,500, or (ii) fair market value as determined by appraisal, SECONDED by Mrs. Fenton. Discussion followed.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND accept the application in the lesser of (i) $5,000.00 per acre not to exceed $152,500, or (ii) fair market value as determined by appraisal,
MOTION added by Mr. Bulman to add $15,000.00 to the funding recommendation for the Nicholas Wade Preserve for survey, legal, appraisal and possible LAND grant application, SECONDED by Mrs. Fenton.
There being no further discussion, the amendment was VOTED 7-0 to RECOMMEND an additional $15,000 for appraisal, survey, legal and possible LAND grant application for the Nicholas Wade Preserve..
Mrs. Fenton asked for clarification on the Nicholas Wade Preserve.
Mr. Bulman stated that the total was $5,000.00 per acre not to exceed $152,500.00 or fair market value, whichever was less, for property acquisition, with an additional $15,000.00 for survey and legal fees, totaling $167,500.
16.
Scituate Historical Bike Trail: MOTION to support the Scituate Historical Bike Trail for funding, in the amount of $37,000.00, by Mr. Bulman, SECONDED by Mr. Limbacher. Discussion followed.
Mrs. Fenton recused herself as she is a member of PATH which is the group supporting the application. She reminded the Committee of the proposal and presentation that was given about the project. The support from both the Recreation and Historical Society on the original proposal, which was $25,000.00, prior to adding signage, was positive. It is a minimal cost once up and running. The Town Administrator has added the additional $12,000.00 for signage to incorporate a related project.
Mr. Snow wanted to know why Mrs. Fenton couldn’t vote. Mr. Bulman stated she could but it was up to Mrs. Fenton whether or to not vote based on her relation to the project and her read of any applicable ethics rules. He indicated that it was prudent for Mrs. Fenton to recuse herself and avoid any potential conflict and it was her decision..
Mr. Gates was unsure of his support.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 2-4, with Mrs. Fenton not voting, NOT TO RECOMMEND the application as submitted.
17.
Steve Lind Property: MOTION to support the Steven Lind Property for funding, in the amount of $5,000.00 per acre, not to exceed $30,000.00 by Mr. Scott, SECONDED by Mr. Limbacher.
Discussion followed and it was indicated that the Committee did not feel any funds for survey, legal, etc. were necessary and that the survey and closing would be ne in conjunction with the Litchfield parcel.
It was discussed that the acquisition made sense since it abutted the Litchfield parvlecel, and existing town property with access to public ways.
There being no further discussion, the project was VOTED 6-0 to RECOMMEND funding for the lesser of (i)$5,000.00 per acre, not to exceed $30,000.00; or (ii) fair market value as determined by appraisal. Mr. Gates recused himself from the vote.
Mr. Bulman thanked the Selectmen for joining the meeting.
Mr. Bulman asked Lisa Potts to make an appointment with the Advisory Board. He asked all of the Board members to submit a summary of the applications so that he can present the applications to the Advisory Board. The summary should be one paragraph, which would include the applicant name, the amount recommended, a description of the project with a reason why it meets CPC goals. Mr. Bulman will forward these to the Advisory Board and the Selectmen before meeting with them. Mr. Bulman asked that the liaisons decide who is going to submit these to him and Lisa Potts.
Ellis House – Mr. Gates
Dallin Plaque – Mr. Gates
Lighthouse Books – Mr. Gates
Old Oaken Bucket – Mr. Gates
Hollett Street Assessors Parcel – Lane
Teak Sherman Garden – Bulman
Softball Field – Lane
Higgins MacAllister – Snow
Henry Turner Bailey Road – Snow
Bates Lane – Snow
Hicks Swamp - Limbacher
Lind Parcel – Limbacher