MOTION by Mr. Leavitt, SECOND by Mr. Limbacher, and UNMANIMOUSLY VOTED 8-0 to accept the agenda as submitted.

Mr. Doug Smith, Chairman of the Historical Commission

Mr. Smith gave a brief description of the Historical Commission’s application, informing the Committee that the Union Cemetery is one of three publically owned cemeteries in Scituate. Mr. Smith explained that is project was part of an ongoing project which was started before Historical Commission was established. Using CPC funds the town engaged in the first step by having a Burial Site Survey done. The results of which are available on line at the Town website under the Scituate Historical Commission’s page and the publication is also available at the Town Library. The next phase, which was also funded with CPC funds, was to have E-Forms submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Listing the cemeteries on the National Register of Historic Place is the third step. The first two sites, the Men of Kent and Cudworth Cemeteries have already received funding approval from the CPC and the process has begun. This is last public cemetery. The hope is that by securing National Register Status it will also help secure potential grant monies, to do some of the preservation work that need to be done. Going forward the Historical Commission will encourage the privately owned cemeteries to pursue the National Register but for the time being they are focusing on the publically owned cemeteries. The funds requested are to hire a preservation consultant. Mr. Smith explained the National Registration Nominations are done by people who have an expertise in the field and know how to speak the language. They would like to use the same woman, Martha Lyons, who prepared the Burial Site Survey and E-Forms. She is currently working on the Men of Kent and the Cudworth nominations.

Mr. Wood asked who owned the cemetery and M. Smith explained that is was transferred to the Town in 1980. Mr. Smith went on to explain that many of the cemeteries in town are privately owned and managed by trustees. As years go on the fade out and the care and responsibility reverts back to the Town. Wood then asked about the Groveland Cemetery to which Mr. Smith said that is was privately owned and managed and that an E-Form had been done on that cemetery in 2000 as part of the MBTA rail restoration because it is considered an historic resource and the train was passing in close proximity to the cemetery. The Groveland Cemetery dates back to the 1700’s.

Mr. Trafton wanted to know if the cemeteries were granted the listing would it allow some of the cemeteries to be restored, specifically some of the head stones. Mr. Smith said that would be the hope. Mr. Smith explained many of the different ways restoring the stones. Mr. Trafton then asked about the cemetery near Fitts Mill. Mr. Smith and Ms. Phippen explained that it was privately own and they were in the process of trying to locate the owners/heirs, which can be a very complicated process.

Mr. Bulman asked about the current status of the Men of Kent and Cudworth. Mr. Smith exlained that before they could apply for the National Register Status they had to complete the E-Burial Form and that took a little longer than they had anticipated. Once they were finished in June 2008 the Historical Commission asked Ms. Lyons to start right away on the National Register Nomination. The hope is the application will be submitted in June of 2009.

Mr. Limbacher stated his support of the project. Mr. Leavitt also stated his support.

Mr. Bulman explained to Mr. Smith his request of all committees to rank in order of importance current and or future applications.

Ms. Phippen, Mr. Thorndike and Ms. Burbine

Ms. Phippen stated that they wanted to rehabilitate the WPA building in N. Scituate. Explaining that it is a very important period building in town, it is one of only four WPA structures left in Massachusetts. She informed the members that the Mass Historical Commission has taken great interest in this project and they have funded the National Register nomination, which has been submitted and the designation is expected at any time. Ms. Phippen went on to say that the building is currently called The Scituate Visitor Center however the group sees themselves more as an information center. A place where non profits can list information, arts and crafts people and businesses can leave information as well. Ms. Phippen informed the members that the Scituate Visitors Center, Inc. has begun fundraising and conducted two major events in the last six months. She further stated why they feel this project meets CPA guidelines; it is a historic town owned building, with great historical significance, and it had a use of purpose now. The selectmen have appropriated money to have the roof repaired.

Ms. Phippen addressed Mr. Limbacher’s concern that the application didn’t have a contingency figure included in it. She pointed out that there was in fact a contingency figure, it was labeled miscellaneous labor and miscellaneous materials under each of the three phases and that it totals 10%. Ms. Phippen explained that the project was presented in phases in case it would be easier for the CPA to fund.

Mr. Burbine addressed the project’s relevance to the CPA criteria. She reminded the members that N. Scituate has been under construction for the last four years. Scituate Village is the only stop on the railroad line that is an actual destination. The WPA building will serve a fantastic function as an information/welcome center with sanitary facilities. They envision in the future that someone will rent bicycles. Ms. Burbine feels that having this building restored will not only be advantageous to the business community of N. Scituate, but to the town of Scituate as a whole. There is a vision that N. Scituate will be changing over the next 5-10 years and this is the town’s opportunity to be prepared.

They are anticipating paying for the maintenance of the building through fees they would charge people to display their materials, vendor fees and continued fund raising.

Mr. Thorndike spoke of the buildings beautiful stone work and significance.

Ms. Phippen said that they had met with the Historical Commission concerning this project.

Mr. Scott asked Mr. Limbacher to speak about the project as the Committee’s liaison to this particular application.

Mr. Limbacher spoke about how well the application followed the Committee’s format. He mentioned his initial reservation about there not being any contingency figure but Ms. Phippen spoke to that. He also feels that it is a phenomenal building!

Both Ms. Phippen and Mr. Thorndike suggested that the Committee Members go and see the building.

Mr. Scott asked when they thought the National Register Nomination was expected as he felt that would play an important role towards gaining approval for the project.

When asked by Mr. Scott if they had a time frame for phase I (which looks like a lot of site work), Ms. Phippen thought it would be five to six months.

Mr. Bulman said his concern with phases is that he wouldn’t want the group to get half way through completion of the project and not have enough money to finish.

Mr. Scott asked if they got through the first phase and funding wasn’t available would the building still be useable and the answer was no.

Ms. Turbine stated that the project was presented in phases in order to break down the different components; however she strongly urged the Committee to fund the whole project at once sighting many projects that failed to thrive because of lack of funds down the road.

Mr. Wood asked what exactly the Scituate Visitors Center, Inc. was and Ms. Phippen answered that is was a formal non-profit, complete with its own tax exempt number, that was created just for this project. Further explaining that this project was not just a historical or Chamber of Commerce project but it was a broad based community effort. The WPA building wasn’t something the Historical Society was willing to take on as it already had too many other projects they were dealing with. She informed the Committee Members that the group did have a nine year lease on the building and their hope is that the Selectmen will grant them another nine year lease once they are able to get this project substantially complete and operational.

Mr. Wood confirmed that the corporate charter came for the State of Massachusetts but the lease came from the Selectmen.

Mr. Trafton was questioning how realistic it was to think that the WPA group would be able to maintain the facility through fees. Ms. Phippen said that there wouldn’t be a lot of expenses associated with the building, especially in the early years. She mentioned that fees would be charge for rack space for brochures, if the farmers market was held there or if organized tours were done they would be charged fees. She said that there was office space upstairs she thought the Chamber of Commerce would be interested in renting. Ms. Phippen doesn’t anticipate that the operational expenses would be difficult. Mr. Trafton asked if she had any idea how much they might run and she did not. They will be manning the building with a volunteer staff. Mr. Trafton wanted to know if the building would be open all year round and who would provide the snow removal. Ms Phippen said that they town provides the snow removal for the parking lot now.

Mr. McKain asked about the historic register and where they were at with that point of procedure. Ms Phippen said that is where most of their effort had been so far. It is so important to lay the ground work for the rest of the project. They have done the preservation plan, the eligibility form as been prepared and the nomination has been filed. All of these things are key in getting support from Mass Historical Commission. Mr. Mckain’s next question was what if they WPA group didn’t get the additional nine years lease what would happen? Ms. Phippen’s answer was that someone will do it and she suspects that the Selectmen would let the Chamber do it. Mr. McKain confirmed that the function of the building would remain the same, it would only be matter of who ran it. Ms. Phippen said that the Chamber of Commerce didn’t want to take responsibility for rehabilitation of the building but they are strong supporters.

Mr. Bulman wanted to know if the building would be available for functions or meetings. Ms. Phippen said yes, although she cautioned that it is not very big. Mr. Bulman went on to say the maybe it could be used by the town for Recreation Department registrations.

Ms. Ivas wanted to know if the land around the building was able for use. Yes it is part of the lease and is where they would hold the farmers market. The intent is that long term they will be able to rebuild the old playground. Ms. Ivas asked if once it was on the National Register if there would be any funds for maintenance. Ms. Phippen said not for upkeep but for programs and cautioned that there is not a lot of money and that it is very competitive.

Mr. Limbacher restated his support for the project, and even though it was presented in phase form the Committee should vote it as one project. He feels confident that once the building has been renovated there will be no shortage of people/groups looking to use it.

Mr. Leavitt asked how many people were in the organization and if Ms. Phippen felt it was a viable Committee in the long term. Ms. Phippen answered that there was a nine member board of directors and that she absolutely sees it as long term, given it draws from all parts of the community.

Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Stewart representing the Conservation Commission

Mr. Greenberg quickly reviewed the original multi phase application brought before the CPC by Mr. Clark in 2001. Mr. Greenberg explained that the conceptual plan he had with him was a result of the first phase of the project. The project is currently in- between proposal and construction. Construction would include new trails, enhancement of the dock, and also a new area that would result in a public amphitheater where the current picnic area is. This application is for the final surveys necessary as part of the implementation, a topographical survey, plan designs for new paths and trails, and informational kiosks and a plan design for a ramp and dock for the existing fishing pier. Mr. Greenberg stated that they had received estimates from two different groups for two elements of this. They have not gone beyond that for additional estimates.

Mr. Wood asked what the purpose of the amphitheater was. Mr. Greenberg responded that the hope was it could be used for a host of different presentations, natural history and environmental being the primary ones. Mr. Stewart explained that the area was rich in history which includes ship building that was done on the river and the sand and gravel that once occupied that space.

Mr. Bulman asked Mr. Stewart and Mr. Greenberg to explain to him why the amphitheater was not a building or structure. Mr. Stewart stated that is would be built out of granite blocks on the current slope.

Mr. Snow reminded Mr. Stewart and Mr. Greenberg that CPC money cannot be used to build a structure. Mr. Bulman stated that the current design seems to fall more into landscaping. Mr. Bulman stated that he feels the kiosks are structures.

Mr. Scott spoke about the original application submitted by Mr. Clark, the five year plan that the Conservation Commission had and how the different phases of this project meet CPC requirements. Mr. Scott stated concern for some of the original parts of the plan that may have been put aside, namely the boat ramp. Mr. Scott felt it would be helpful to the CPC and the Town to have the Conservation Commission update their five year plan, stating what the plan was, where it is at now, where they hope to go with it and what they anticipate future expenses to be. Mr. Bulman agreed stating that the more cohesive it is the better it makes it for this project. Mr. Scott said it would help to justify this project as well. Mr. Snow reminded the Committee that some of the pieces of the plan were met with resistance so that the Conservation Commission was trying to go forward with the pieces that were more favorable in general. He agreed it was a good point. Mr. Bulman stated that updating the 5 year plan was in keeping with his request earlier in the evening to have each Committee rank their projects. CPC funding may be reduced in the future so knowing what’s anticipated, the CPC may save money specifically to complete certain projects.

Mr. Bulman voiced concern that if the CPC knows it can’t build a kiosk then they shouldn’t being paying for architectural plans to design one. He asked the Conservation Commission to break down the application in more detail and take out the things that are structures, including the roof on the pier. Mr. McKain echoed the same concerns about paying for structures, but felt that the amphitheater fell in line with landscaping. There was continued discussion about the pier and the roof. Mr. Greenberg informed the Committee members that these ideas were all the result of public recommendations. Mr. McKain isn’t sure that a re-planking of the existing pier falls under the CPA guidelines. It seems to fall under the realm of maintenance, however Mr. Bulman will look into it.

Mr. Leavitt wanted to know when the work would be done. He suggested that the Conservation Commission be more specific about what they want and come in with a design build application. He went on to explain how the Historical Society was able to reduce costs on the Grist Mill project. Mr. Leavitt suggested that they get estimates for the work from local contractors. He has a real concern that this project has been going on four or five years and it’s continually conceptual with nothing concrete. As the proposal stands now the Conservation Commission will be spending almost a $100,000 on the design. Mr. Bulman agreed with Mr. Leavitt explaining that they would rather give money to build it next fall versus funding a study and then money dries up and you end up with a study and no construction money. Perhaps the Conservation Commission should pick one component of the project and concentrate on obtaining money for building that, for instance the amphitheater. Mr. Stewart mentioned that Northern Oak was very helpful working on the rail bed out to the marsh, providing the labor free of charge. Mr. Scott feels that you are going to have to pay for design because it would have to go to public bid. It is not legally permissible to ask private contractors to give a price.

Ms. Ivas had some questions concerning the present boat ramp and if the project before the Committee would impact the residents ability to use it and if so how. Discussion continued around this question. Mr. Snow explained the controversy surrounding the original proposal to build a new boat ramp on the river directly across the street from the entrance to Widows Walk Gold Course and why that had to be postponed. Mr. Snow, Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Stewart all agreed that the Conservation Commission would still like to see that project come to fruition in the future. As it stands now however, residents will be able to use the existing boat ramp.

Driftway Affordable Housing postponed. Mr. Trafton explained the application may be revised so that it is for affordable rental units versus ownership. Conversation continued surrounding why this is just coming to the attention of the Housing Authority now. Mr. Bulman mentioned about another group that came before the CPC with a possible project for an assisted living house with four bedrooms that would qualify as four affordable units.

Mr. Bulman said that he wanted the meeting of the second Monday in February to be the advertised annual public meeting. That date is February 7th. It will be held at the GAR Hall. Discussion continued on how the information will be presented to the general public. A short synopsis possibly written by each Committee Member liaison, possibly to be on the web site as well as hard copy for pick up at Town Hall and handouts at public meeting.

Mr. Bulman will check with Mr. Agnew on the Ellis House proposal and the Board of Selectmen’s control over the property. If the Committee were to have a favorable vote on the Ellis House application but the Selectmen did not, it is Mr. Bulman’s opinion that the proposal could not go before Town Meeting. He will get concrete answers before the next meeting.

No ideas have come forth on a thank you gift for St. Mary’s Parish Center.

Mr. Bulman has sent an E-Mail to the CPA Coalition to get some guidance on how much the match is going to be. Last year they were quite accurate.

Mr. Bulman received an E-mail from Janet Cornacchio inviting the CPC to hold their next meeting at the Ellis House. Mr. Bulman feels that the meeting should remain at the GAR Hall and if the meeting was to be moved the Committee would hxave to vote to approve that. He also thinks that the Members should see the house in the light of day. He would like to schedule a visit before the next meeting of January 15th.

MOTION by Mr. Snow, SECOND by Mr. Leavitt, and UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to adjourn.