MOTION by Mr. Limbacher, SECOND by Mr. McKain and UNANIMOUSLY VOTED 6-0 to accept the agenda as submitted.

Mr. Bulman told the members that Barbara Lydon would come in with representatives from Horsley Witten and give a presentation/update on the PATH project. Mr. Bulman is concerned with two issues. Number one the structural issue of what was initially approved that being and eight foot path that ran from N. Scituate to Gannett Road. Secondly if the path is less than eight feet wide for substantial portions the committee must make sure that it still qualifies for CPC funding. Primarily that it is a “path” and not a sidewalk.

Mr. Bulman wanted to get consensus from the board and give members a chance to voice their opinions with respect to the path being reduced in width.

Mr. Scott would like to see the applicants come in with plans for what they can build and bring alternate options. Mr. Scott is not over concerned with the width being reduced. He’d like to see the project go forth.

Mr. Trafton didn’t want to offer any opinions as he felt he was not that well schooled in the subject.

Mr. McKain was under that impression that almost 86% of the PATH was going to be eight feet wide. Mr. McKain echoed Mr. Scott’s opinion that the issue of contiguity is really important and that is to build the PATH all the way to Hatherly Road. Mr. McKain stated that if the board thought the PATH would only go from N. Scituate to Hollett Street the project would probably not have been approved. Therefore he is in favor of going forward, even if sections are deduced in width as long as they are useable in order to reach the final goal.

Mr. Leavitt stated that he could understand the practical problems causing narrowing of the PATH and as long as the applicant’s group was satisfied that final product would still be a good bicycle and pedestrian path he has no problems.

Ms. Lydon assured the members that the project falls within the state guidelines for a bicycle/pedestrian path.

Mr. Wood had no comments.

Mr. Limbacher is concerned about the 33% that wouldn’t be eight feet wide. He questioned the calculations and there was discussion among the members as to how the calculations worked out.

Mr. Bulman stated the some of the reduction in width was necessary to accommodate and abutter. The mission given by the selectmen was to do the best you can with the abutters.

Ms. Lydon agreed and said the abutters are questioning if anything why does the PATH need to be so wide. Why are there not more on road accommodations for cyclists and more off road accommodations for pedestrians?

Mr. Limbacher then asked the question “why wouldn’t you make the whole thing six feet”? Ms. Lydon’s answer was that in the best case scenario, if they wanted to use the Transportation Enhancement Fund, six feet is their recommendation.

Mr. Bulman said that they may be what they get to at the next meeting.

Discussion continued between Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Bulman and Ms. Lydon about the three options referenced in the PATH letter to CPC dated April 9, 2009.

Mr. Limbacher wanted to know if Ms. Lydon had any feeling on how close the PATH group was to receiving grant money.

Ms. Lydon is optimistic because the authorities like that the project is shovel ready, they have walked it, it meets their criteria and there is a good partnership between the local community and the State and Federal funds.

Mr. Scott updated the members on the proposed girls’ softball field. The vernal pool can only be evaluated in April and May. The DPW has funded $650 for John Richardson to make a determination as to whether or not there is a vernal pool on the proposed site for the girls’ softball field.

Mr. Bulman clarified that the CPC was very clear about the process the recreation department was to follow. If there is a delineation that determines a vernal pool does exist the recreation commission cannot move forward until they can prove that the field can be built. If it affects their budget they cannot start construction until they solve that problem, there is an order of conditions.

MOTION by Mr. McKain, SECOND by Mr. Bulman to adjourn and unanimously voted 8-0.