CAPE COD COMMISSION
                 21       CENTURY REVIEW TASK FORCE
                                May 31, 2006


Keith Bergman                            Present
Elliott Carr                             Present
Larry Cole                               Present
Michael Cole                             Present
Lindsey Counsell                         Present
Thomas Evans                             Present
Hank Farnham                             Present
Maggie Geist                             Present
Henry Kelley                             Present
Tom Keyes                                Present
Vicky Lowell                             Present
Ed Mangiafico                            Absent
Spyro Mitrokostas                        Present
Tom Moccia                               Absent
Wendy Northcross                         Present
Paula Peters                             Present
Henri Rauschenbach                       Present
Mark Robinson                            Present
Tony Shepley                             Present


Mark Zielinski
Dave Willard
Dorr Foxx
Margo Fenn
Alan Platt
Brad Crowell

                               CAPE COD COMMISSION
                       21     CENTURY REVIEW TASK FORCE
                                 MEETING MINUTES
                                    May 31, 2006

         The 21st Century Review Task Force appointed to review the Cape Cod
Commission and to report their findings to the Barnstable County Commissioners, met on
Wednesday morning May 31, 2006 in rooms 11 and 12 in the Barnstable Superior
Courthouse in the Village of Barnstable. Chairman Elliott Carr called the meeting to
order at 8:01, saying that while everything is discuss-able, he will be calling meetings to
order at 8:00, whether everyone is present or not. The listing of those attending the
meeting, including any folks who came after the meeting was called to order, is attached.
Elliott said that Tom Moccia is in the hospital and that Ed Mangiafico is still in Italy. He
observed that four Committee members are present this week who missed the first
meeting last week.

1. MINUTES- Since the minutes were only distributed the day before, which didn’t give
everyone enough time to read and digest them, E. Carr suggested holding off reviewing
and voting them until next week. He cautioned (warned) members that David is obsessed
about picking up everyone’s comments, so they have one chance to make any corrections
in the overly detailed minutes.

2. MARGO PRESENTATION- On the agenda was a scheduled presentation by the
Cape Cod Commission staff, which E. Carr said would last until 9:30. Commission
Executive Director Margo Fenn began with the help of Power Point. She said that since
the Task Force had asked for an overview of the Commission and its activities, she had
prepared a broad explanation. The Commission is now working one more detailed,
specific for the regulatory process.
         HISTORY- Margo gave a brief history of the Commission, how it was signed
into law in 1990 after it became more apparent to many that the Cape was growing so fast
that a regional entity needed to be created to deal with development, water,
transportation, etc. on a regional basis. Thus the planning and land use agency for
Barnstable County was birthed, which provides land use planning, technical assistance to
towns, and the review of large developments. The Commission has a 19 member Board,
which includes one member appointed from each town.
        FUNCTIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES- Margo made a thorough and
comprehensive review of the various areas and functions the Commission covers,
    in addition to planning for land use,
    protection of peninsula water,
    planning waste water management,
    preservation of historic buildings,
    working on and helping to fund affordable housing,
    economic development projects,
    analysis of demographic and economic information,
    together with other responsibilities and programs.

Margo identified many complementary and supporting departments the Commission is
working with and/or part of. These are all in business to help the towns. The Commission
has many departments and a number of staff people. Amongst other services, they
provide studies and analysis of resources for towns.

   REGIONAL POLICY PLAN- In 1991 the Commission produced the first Cape Cod
Regional Policy Plan, which is the blueprint for regulation of development. The RPP
contains minimum standards for Development of Regional Impact (DRI) reviews. A
project that qualifies for DRI scrutiny needs to meet these standards. Some of the thresh
holds for DRIs is a commercial building exceeding 10,000 square feet, a housing
development of 30 units minimum, or development of thirty acres or more. The RPP also
contain a definition of District of Critical Planning Concern. There have been seven
DCPCs designated on the Cape so far, which Margo showed in her Power Point

   REGULATORY CHANGES- Margo admitted that the Commission receives
complaints that its regulatory process is too time consuming and too expensive. They
have made some changes to make the process easier and less costly.
        HARDSHIP EXEMPTION- They have provided special hardship exemptions
for projects that can demonstrate community benefits. While Margo stressed that this
wasn’t designed for nor does it specify only non-profits are eligible, so far the vast
majority of exemptions granted have been to non-profits. These applicants include
W.H.A.T, YMCA, National Marine Life Center, IFAW, Riverview School in Sandwich
and the Cape End Manor in Provincetown. Under a hardship exemption, the rules are
more flexible.
        GROWTH INCENTIVE ZONE- This allows towns to designate certain areas
for higher density. Downtown Hyannis is the first such GIZ.
        REDEVELOPMENT- This change that encourages redevelopment allows the
Commission to review and measure only any increased impacts on the changes to the
development, not what was there already.
       UNDER CONSIDERATION- Margo then explained two potential changes that
were now under consideration by the Commission.
           LIMITED REVIEW- This would cut down on the time and cost of a
               review for smaller projects.
           DRI THRESHOLD- This change under consideration would make it
               easier to build in a GIZ and harder in more sensitive locations.

3. QUESTIONS- Upon completion of Margo’s presentation, Elliott asked if the Task
Force members had any questions.
   S. Mitrokostas- He noted that when Margo said they were looking at changes, she
   referred to “we.” He wondered who the “we” is that will make and decide on these
   M. Fenn- The Commission has standing committees that review these kinds of
   proposals. Changes then go to Regulatory and then on the full Commission Board.
   There is a public process and a hearing before the Assembly votes. Ultimately if
   approved it becomes a County Ordinance.
   W. Northcross- What is the average time for that process to happen?

   M. Fenn- It is variable, depending on the complexity of the proposal. She said it take
   a year to a year and a half to update the RPP.
   E. Carr- The RPP is in essence County zoning. Some of the most contentious hearings
   are with attorneys and developers, which slows the process. It can’t be done over
   V. Lowell- She wondered how complex it was to create a GIZ. How easy would it be
   to do more?
   M. Fenn- An individual GIZ, once approved, is easier to change.

4. HARDSHIP EXEMPTION- Much discussion ensued over the “hardship exemption”
that Margo covered in her presentation. In particular, the definition of what constitutes a
community benefit came into question.
   T. Keyes- He returned to M. Fenn’s explanation of a hardship exemption being based
   on a project of community benefit, which qualifiers then enjoy an expedited review
   process. He said there needs to be consistency in this area of who qualifies. M. Fenn
   had mentioned that non-profits have limited resources. He observed that there is no
   difference between non-profits and other businesses, save for the way they pay taxes.
   He has a lot of clients who when they start a business, are making less than their
   employees. You can’t take a project and make it less cumbersome, just because it is
   being done by a non-profit. This is a failed philosophy. This is part of the
   Commission’s problem. It is inconsistent. Why do it for non-profits and not for
   M. Fenn- The hardship exemption is not simply for non-profits, but for anyone
   providing community benefit like health care, education and cultural activities. Things
   people value above every day business as usual.
   K. Bergman- Provincetown submitted a hardship exemption for the Cape End Manor
   project, which will provide an 81 bed facility and 40 assisted living units. This was
   definitely a community articulated benefit. The town needed it. One of his goals is to
   have a better link with the towns and the Commission and have it count for something
   when permitting and regulation comes into play. He feels that articulating the
   community benefit should give a town a leg up in the proving-a-hardship-line.
   T. Keyes- He feels it is all in how you value community benefits. The Tedeschi group
   applied to build a Shaw’s in Sandwich. The community wanted it, and has expressed
   support for it. Yet Shaw’s has been trying to get approval through the Commission for
   two years. The process is too long. It’s a matter of value and judgement, since to
   Sandwich, this development would be a community benefit.
   B. Crowell- He understands the concerns being expressed over the community benefit
   issue. He revealed that the Commission had wrestled with the definition of a hardship
   exemption. The way it’s written, it doesn’t say it’s only for non-profits. There are
   seven areas that qualify as a community benefit under the regulation including
   affordable housing, health care, etc. The benefits must be related to one of the seven
   to qualify as a hardship. A supermarket may be a difficult case to make. Non-profits
   seem to provide more of these qualifying aspects.
   E. Carr- This is definitely something the Task Force should look at.

   T. Keyes- Towns aren’t involved in the Commission’s day-to-day decisions. Towns
   should have input on what is a community benefit. We don’t have any say. No one in
   Sandwich would have said a Shaw’s is not a community benefit.
   E. Carr- Some of the town representatives to the Commission are better at carrying
   the baggage and the message than others.
   H. Rauschenbach- What are the other hardship provisions?
   M. Fenn- Any project can claim a hardship, which could include financial,
   topography of the land, etc.
   H. Rauschenbach- How often are those kinds of hardships claimed?
   M. Fenn- Many more on the financial side.
   D. Foxx- He estimated that 80% of the hardships applied for relate to financial, and
   20% other.
   H. Rauschenbach- He wondered what the batting average was of the claimants?
   D. Foxx- He said 100% have been approved to date.
   H. Rauschenbach- Continuing this line of questioning, he asked what the dollar
   scope of these requests represented, $20K, $80K?
   M. Fenn- Naturally it varies per project. The Commission asks for a financial pro
   forma to accompany these applications. Sometimes it is just one aspect.
   H. Rauschenbach- He asked for specific examples of hardship exemptions granted.
   D. Foxx- He cited the Trinity Christian School and the Kidney Dialysis Center.
   H. Rauschenbach- He feels it would be interesting and informative for the Task
   Force to look at what exemptions have been made and on what basis.

5. TASK FORCE RESPONSE- At the first meeting held last week, Chairman Carr had
asked Task Force members to get back to him with comments and requests of what
information they would like to have, and what topics they want discussed to help fulfill
their charge from the County Commissioners. He has put together a summary of what has
come into him so far. He said there are some good, data based questions. He suggested
the group talk about what lists going forward, they would like to see.

6. RETURN TO HARDSHIP- The interest in the hardship exemption and what
constitutes community benefit did not wane, as Task Force members delved back into the
   L. Cole- He was at the community benefit hearing on hardship exemptions. He argued
   for economic benefits to be considered. The reality is that when a big box store
   applies, opposition comes from small businesses in town. Yet, the big box store can
   provide better prices and longer hours, which are benefits to lots of people in the
   community. The fact is that start-ups (many in financial straits), and small businesses
   with high failure rates, don’t come before the Commission.
   S. Mitrokostas- IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) got passed on a
   hardship exemption. In essence they are constructing a 40,000 square foot building.
   They are the same as any other business to the community. What difference does it
   make between IFAW as an applicant, or any other business?
   J. Lipman- He thinks in this instance the decision that said no review was needed,
   had to do with the change of use, not the applicant. It could have been any business

who came in to apply to clean up the site. There was no further impact than the former
Gold Star Nursery made.
D. Foxx- He gave examples of for profit businesses which had received hardship
exemptions from the Commission which included Bed, Bath & Beyond, and In Home
Furnishings. These were involved in a process reviewing new commercial projects
where businesses existed.
E. Carr- The Task Force should be focusing on how it might “tinker” with
T. Shepley- Hardship sounds like a rule was made, then an exemption was created. Is
this a good way to manage things?
T. Keyes- There are two things to consider here, hardship and benefits. He would like
to see the towns have more input on what they want. What are the benefits to the
town? We need more town control and input in these reviews. Who else knows the
town better? The benefit to Shaw’s included their agreement to donate money for the
library and community center in Sandwich, as well as paying for road widening and
improvements near the project. Yet the Town of Sandwich had no input.
V. Lowell- The Commission is charged to look regionally. A project might benefit
Sandwich, but it wouldn’t necessarily be a benefit to neighboring towns like Mashpee
or Bourne.
L. Cole- Sometimes a town is divided. Sometimes town officials send a project to the
Commission for its review because the project is a “hot potato” locally and the
officials can pass on the decision making. Strategic and political games often are
played in this process and the Commission becomes a convenient forum.
T. Keyes- He still maintains that the Commission needs input from the towns to
determine community benefit. And not just in an advisory role, but a process where
the town’s input has weight.
T. Evans- He speaks from experience in his role as Headmaster of the Cape Cod
Academy, where he appeared three times before the Commission for building addition
approvals. The first time the Academy received a waiver, the second time it was
required to go through the full, DRI process, and the third time the DRI process was
waived. He said he felt that the Academy had to jump through almost as many hoops
to be waived, as it did going through the full DRI process. He did testify that non-
profits should have exemption waivers. Of course non-profits range from Harvard
University to very small non-profits that depend on fundraising. WHOI, MBL and the
Hospital are way ahead of the rest. This is complicated territory to have a generic
description of non-profits.
M. Robinson- In 1995, towns subjugated their review process with that of the
Commission’s so that town representatives are the liaison. He feels in this way towns
should have more input.
E. Carr- He repeated his observation that some town Commission representatives are
better than others in stating their case.
A. Platt- The present Chairman of the Commission Board, he said this is like déjà vu.
He remembers the difficulty the Commission had deciding on the definition of
community benefits. Finally they felt this was a good idea. It was a sea change from
what had been happening. It’s still a work in process. The Commission welcomes
good suggestions.

   B. Crowell- Relative to the Commission representative from each town, they are in a
   bind. Each member’s responsibility is to see that the rules are applied regionally.
   Their role is not supposed to be advocating a specific position. Through the
   Commission representative is not the best way to get town input

7. ECONOMIC BENEFITS- The discussion surrounding community benefits segued a
bit from the community benefits alluded to in the Commission’s hardship eligibility
requirements, to more emphasis on economic benefits. Some felt economic benefits
should carry more weight in the decision making.
        J. Lipman-He put forth a deeper cut on this aspect of community benefits. The
        regulations say that exemptions should be granted when full compliance would
        decrease the ability of that company to provide community service. Perhaps it’s
        time for a careful review of the standards. Maybe if we think economically, that
        something doesn’t fit the mold, how can we consider the economic benefits?
        Maybe we need another tool, and not have one regulation cover all.
        E. Carr- He noted that in the written comments that had been submitted to him by
        Task Force members, Tom Moccia and Hank Farnham get more into economic
        benefits rather than community benefits. He recalled that the last Task Force went
        all around the barn on this issue. They said retail jobs are irrelevant to the
        community, unless they create a zone for good, higher paying jobs. Not long after
        that the high tech field started going down. There is still a debate as to what is a
        good job, although there seems to be universal doubt that creating low-paying
        retail jobs would be part of any community and/or economic benefit.
        L. Cole- As a general proposition, the Commission weighs benefits versus
        detriments, not versus costs. There are no implications that the Commission is
        doing an economic calculus. There is no comparison or weighing of jobs benefit,
        versus community character and green space. How would you quantify these?
        T. Keyes- Cape Cod as we know, is very diverse in character. Sandwich has a
        large number of students graduating from high school, but no available jobs for
        them. The Cape Cod Commission has helped Wareham and Plymouth, as through
        its costly and inconsistently administered rules and reviews, young people cannot
        afford to live in Sandwich. Thus they have all moved, as a direct result of the
        Commission. The community should be providing career jobs in clean, light, low
        tech manufacturing, not the $11 an hour jobs. But these kinds of companies are
        discouraged from locating on the Cape by the Commission. To illustrate his
        claim, T. Keyes said the Town of Sandwich just put out for an RFP process, 52
        acres of commercially zoned land. Sixty large companies, potential developers,
        took out applications showing their interest. Only four RFP’s were returned with
        proposals. Why didn’t the other 56 interest parties apply? He said several were
        asked. Their answers were almost all the same. They didn’t want to go through
        the Commission. Time was the biggest deterrent and determinant. They didn’t
        have the two years they felt it would take at a minimum, to traverse the
        Commission’s process.
        V. Lowell- The main concept the Commission is encouraging is for towns to
        create areas where businesses can grow. Think of it as land use areas. Make land
        use decisions based on a long term outlook.

       T. Shepley-The worst reason to build something is because you are afraid you
       can’t build it later. There has been a 102% increase in commercial buildings in
       fifteen years. That figure would have been less if there had not been the fear that
       Commission regulations would change. Building in that high a volume was an
       unintended consequence. But unfortunately there is a lack of consistent
       framework in the Commission process to give investors confidence in their ability
       to build later, rather than build now out of fear. There is too much looking at
       projects on a case-by-case basis. We should look at the symptoms and say there is
       a large issue here, and we can dare to be wrong. It is “crazy” when the largest
       land owner in Independence Park is a lumber business. We have thrown out the
       Gillette-types it was intended for.
       T. Evans- There is definitely a lot of 9,990 square foot commercial buildings
       around with high vacancy rates.
       T. Shepley- We have built more than we need, but things do ebb and flow.

8. MEETING TIMES & DATES- Chairman Carr circulated a compilation of
everyone’s comments that he has received to date. He said there are now two or three
more and he will have a revised summary next week. Then he talked about establishing a
schedule of meeting dates and times for the foreseeable future. Tom Keyes was looking
for an earlier start time than 8:00, as he said it means a difference in the start of the work
day for business people. Paula Peters on the other hand, has two young children to get to
school and even 8:00 is a bit of a struggle for her. Although once school is out, she said
earlier would be okay. There was consensus that starting time from now on would be at
7:45 a.m. for all meetings, which will be held in Rooms 11 & 12 in the Barnstable
Superior Courthouse. Next week’s meeting will feature Pat Butler coming in with other
barrister colleagues to talk about DRIs. There is twenty minutes being allotted for this

9. OTHER GUESTS- Part of the success of this Task Force will rest on what members
hear from various groups who interact with the Commission, especially during the
regulatory process, where most of the tension seems to reside. Chairman Carr pointed out
that on the last page there is a listing of such eligible and helpful groups. He would love
to finalize what is going to happen when. He hopes that some of the Task Force members
with certain ties to the affected groups will set up some of these sessions. It was
suggested that some small businesses should be asked in as well as past applicants. Elliott
said that at least three such past applicants applied for membership on this Task Force.
He advised that he will call some of the Task Force people asking for their help as to who
will come before the full group.
         H. Rauschenbach- He thought it might be interesting to invite former
         Commission Executive Director Armando Carbonell to come back and talk to the
         Task Force. He thought Armando might provide an interesting perspective.
         V. Lowell- She feels the Task Force needs to hear from people engaged in town
         planning. Not the professional, paid staff, Town Planners, but volunteer members
         of Planning Boards.
         E. Carr- All the Commissioners have asked to come. He will be trying to line
         them up and fit them in.

       L. Cole- Besides attorneys, he would like to see experts on water, engineers and
       other professional who appear before the Commission. We should hear from them
       what problems they may encounter in complying with the rules. Why are there
       discrepancies in the way regulations are interpreted and/or applied?
       E. Carr- He wonders whether we shouldn’t have one big meeting where everyone
       involved in wastewater; traffic, housing, etc. are invited.
       T. Evans- He spent as much time with the architects and engineers, as he did
       with attorneys. He thinks it’s a good idea to get them in.
       H. Rauschenbach- When you talk about inviting town officials, there is a big
       difference between big and small towns. It would be more interesting to split them
       out in separate meetings, than throw them all into one big one.
       T. Keyes- If you invited all town officials, there would be too many for one room,
       no matter where you held the meeting.
       K. Bergman- He would do it on a sub-regional basis.
       E. Carr- He wouldn’t anticipate such a large turnout. He thinks you would have
       to work hard to get someone from each of the fifteen towns.
       T. Keyes- He thinks there is a problem doing it sub-regionally.

10. ONE BIG MEETING- As the idea of having just one, large meeting inviting only
elected town officials gained traction, the Task Force members began to contribute
        E. Carr- Chairman Carr asked for consensus one holding one, evening meeting
        at a central location like Barnstable High School or the Community College,
        inviting all elected officials.
        T. Keyes- Sandwich needs to hear how Orleans values the Commission and vice
        versa. It would be valuable for all towns to hear it in one evening meeting.
        E. Carr- It would be interesting. Would folks from Provincetown travel to
        Yarmouth for such a meeting?
        H. Rauschenbach- What do you want? A dog and pony show or a dialogue?
        E. Carr- In 1994 the Review Committee went to Falmouth, Eastham and
        Barnstable and held open meetings. But they didn’t have many people from each
        town listening to each other.
        V. Lowell- She thinks the only way this will work is for the Task Force to get on
        each town’s agenda. The chances of getting everyone from all towns to a central
        meeting are bleak. It might get only a couple.
        E. Carr- There is a Selectmen’s Association which we might go before.
        T. Keyes - A Selectman from Sandwich, he said that the Association meets at 8:00
        a.m. Because most Selectmen have jobs, it is not well attended. But he still
        believes that having one meeting at night, one shot inviting only town elected
        officials, is the answer. Fifteen towns need to voice their opinions together.
        E. Carr- For the next meeting, should we have details on how this meeting will be
        set up? He wondered if each Task Force member would help get elected officials
        from their town to come?
        H. Rauschenbach- He asked again what would be the purpose of this meeting?
        E. Carr- It’s to hear what others towns say about the Commission and see if there
        are common proposals for constructive change.

       L. Cole- He would like to take on the responsibility of inviting the Outer Cape
       towns to this meeting. They want to hear what the Task Force is thinking.
       P. Peters- She feels there should be a professional facilitator to structure and
       conduct the meeting.
       V. Lowell- We should have a definite structure on what the participants are
       expected to comment on. Provide them with background and a prelude. Maybe
       this meeting is premature until we define what we want.
       E. Carr- Everyone agrees then that we need to get better prepared. We need to
       do it later in our process.
       M. Fenn- She thinks V. Lowell’s is a good idea to have recommendations for
       meeting participants to respond to. We won’t have a final plan but we would have
       defined the issues.
       M. Zielinski- We could solicit questions from town officials for the meeting.
       T. Keyes- He doesn’t think we should hold this meeting at the end of the process,
       but rather at midstream. We may learn something at that time that we hadn’t
       thought of, rather than waiting until the end.
       E. Carr- We’ll flush it out before the next meeting and come back with a firm


       T. Keyes- He wondered if there was an agreement on a conveniently accessible
       facility to hold this meeting. He said the Selectmen’s Association tries to get close
       to Exit 10 for their meetings.
       S. Mitrokostas- The Realtor’s Association has a 360 seat facility in West
       L. Cole- The Cape Cod Regional Technical High School is just off Exit 10 and
       contains a more than adequate facility.

11. OTHER BUSINESS- Before adjourning Chairman Carr asked if there were other
items Task Force members wanted to put on future agendas to discuss, or that should be
incorporated in the plan of work.
   P. Peters- She would like to talk about staff issues and add term limits for
   Commission Board members.
   L. Counsell- He would like to know how the Military Reservation is dealt with? He
   sees it like the 16th town. He would like an explanation about how the Commission
   staff deals with it. For that matter, how does it deal with requests within the confines
   of the Cape Cod National Seashore?
   E. Carr- We could easily get Seashore Park officials here.
   L. Cole - The Commission played a major role in the County group that cobbled
   together the agreement on the MMR that was signed by State and federal officials. The
   Commission has been active on the Base from time to time over the years.
   M. Fenn- She could think of a couple of people from the Base who would come and
   talk to the Task Force.

12. COUNTY RESOURCES- K. Bergman picked up on a theme he had espoused at the
first meeting, concerning County resources. He pointed out there were so many activities
at the regional level that it is hard to keep track of them all. He feels towns should be
better informed about what County resources can be made available. When an offer of
assistance is made to the towns, who decides if the services will be done by the
Commission staff or whether it will be parceled out to another non-profit? He wonders
about the Economic Development component of the County. Who does what, between
the Commission’s Economic Development officer and the Cape Cod Economic
Development Council? As a consumer, he is confused how regional resources are
brought to bear. He believes the Task Force should look at all the other things the
Commission does, not just its regulatory function. They are just part of the County
assistance bureaucracy. He would like to see the other pieces.
         M. Zielinski- He feels K. Bergman raises a very germane point. He said the
         County struggles for instance, with the waste water issue. There are different
         staffs and departments working on pieces of it.
         H. Rauschenbach- It would be interesting to meet with the Assembly, to get their
         feel for what is going on.
         K. Bergman- It is not clear to him how priorities are set in a meaningful way.
         E. Carr- He doesn’t disagree. But this Task Force was charged to review the
         Commission. If we want to get into other areas, it should be done through the
         Commissioners. It is not our call to expand our mission beyond the charge.
         V. Lowell- While other questions about the Commission have been raised, she
         thinks the most valid is implementation. That is the biggest problem.
         E. Carr- Of the recommendations from the last report, much has been
         implemented. There was a strong presumption that if the towns finished their
         plans, the problem would be solved, because people assumed the towns would
         change their own zoning. None of them have. That is the 1,000 pound gorilla.
         T. Keyes- Zoning defines the town, what towns perceive as valuable and what
         their needs are. It is difficult to have one RPP dictate all the LCPs.
         M. Robinson- He knows that Eastham formed a committee to implement its LCP.
         M. Cole- Yes. He was on that committee. And with a year ‘round population of
         about 5,000 in Eastham, he doubted that twenty of them ever read the LCP.
         W. Northcross- There is a huge frustration around how to get towns to
         implement their plans. It does make sense to tell the Commission to implement the
         needed/recommended zoning changes if the towns won’t.
         K. Bergman- He agrees. There is a way to be proactive.
         E. Carr- We will help the Commission make improvements. We will come to the
         other things in their natural order, but not yet.

13. NEXT MEETING- The next meeting is Wednesday morning, June 7th at 7:45 a.m.,
back in Rooms 11 & 12 at the Barnstable Superior Courthouse.

Meeting adjourned at 9:58 a.m.

David B. Willard

Salubrious Scrivener


To top