CONFIDENTIAL ROUGHLY EDITED REALTIME FILE
Compliments of Birnbaum Interpreting Services

***************************************
This file was created in real time by a Realtime Captioner. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. A consumer should check with the presenter for any clarification of the presentation.

************************************

RICH DELANEY >> Good evening, everyone members of the commission. I am honored to bring to order the 315TH meeting of this august organization.  That is a lot of meetings. Sometimes I feel like I’ve been to 300 of them – some of us have been at the majority of the meetings. 
SHEILA>> I lot those meetings we have. 
RICH>> We do have an agenda prepared in advance and distributed to you I will ask for a motion to adopt the agenda. 
SHEILA>> So moved.
>> Second 
>> All in favor? We've got an agenda. You also have distributed in advance minutes from our January meeting. You've had a chance to comment and edit those before, a chance to have a quick discussion now. 
JEN>> I don't think they are printed. 
RICH>> To have us consider as edits. Lilli Ann, you had submitted some comments you wanted added as edits.
LILLI-ANN>> I sent edits to the minutes based upon only my comments, there is additions, no deletions, just to have on the record the minutes the points I made during the meeting, what Jen sent, what she wanted us to discuss today and get more clarity and also listened to the whole meeting for what I said. I have printed out ‑‑ 
>> I would like to see those included. 
CHERYL>> They are included in they were on the closed captioning. 
JEN>> The minutes are not intended to be for the transcript? 
>> Exactly. The transcript is online. 
LILLI ANN>> They be added they are the minutes of the meeting and a summary of the meeting the point that I made that I thought were important. 
>> I think we are willing to accept those and if you want to briefly give 2 or three highlights. 
LILLI ANN>> It was elaborating on some of the point we made during the meeting but adding more clarity come mostly about the rule of order and some details around that. 
SHEILA:>> Such as? 
LILLI-ANN>> Such as comments reflect areas of concern in the topics are not rescripted. As far as public comments are concerned this has always been the format in the forum for the public to come in and state whatever their concerns are. 
>> So, the public had the right to speak at these meetings and can say what is on their mind. 
>> They do. 
>> What else? 
JEN >> These are edits want to make to the meeting minutes from last week. We are about to talk about the rules of order. 
>> Correct. 
JEN>> Separately. By accepting the meeting minute edits doesn't mean we are accepting it to the change of the rules of order we don't have it yet but have a version today to get conference on, but I want to make sure an acceptance of a comment from the meeting minutes does not say it's an endorsement of the comment. 
LILLI ANN>> Exactly. 
>> Just on ‑‑ 
LILLI ANN>> They are simply the minutes reflecting the comments I made during the meeting, that is all. I want them on the record. 
RICH>> That's fair. 
LARRY>> I don't understand whether these are coming in as part of the official minutes which we haven't seen,  her comments she would like to make about the minutes which I don't have a problem coming in like that, but I don't know if they should come in as official minutes. 
>> I sent them to Cheryl and followed up with Cheryl she said they would not be admitted ‑‑ I did print them out and have copies for everybody if you want to see they are exactly what I said during the meeting. 
LARRY>> I appreciate the effort you made, and I don't have a problem with them coming in as long as they are not official minutes when none of us have seen them. 
LILLI ANN>> What am I supposed to do in the future if I make comments during the meeting now part of the minutes which historically speaking, we receive ‑‑ if we made edits those edits are folded into the minutes and we vote on those. I actually made and that is the way the assembly works is if we have comments about the minutes, we send them to the clerk to add them to the minutes and then we vote on those whether ‑‑ if we don't to have them, we don’t, have them we have them ‑‑ 
>> I don't have a problem coming up with your comment if we are going to change ‑‑ 
>> Maybe we need a new remedy. 
>> Is it okay if we table this and go through how we are operating, the protocol, so table it and let's get on the agenda. 
>> Thank you. 
RICH>> With that in mind, we can approve ‑‑ vote to approve the January minutes as written ending potential changes in the second discussion. 
LARRY>> I will move. 
>> Is there a second? All in favor? 
LILLI-ANN>> No. 
RICH>> When objecting. Let's move to the superintendent report. 
JENNIFER FLYNN>> I don't have too much today. Some news for the good of the order. Thought you would be interested in parks staffing we are proceeding with hiring our seasonal positions. We are scheduled funded/targeting about 110 seasonal employees that is still in process we are not sure where exactly we will land on that number but are moving full speed ahead some folks start as early as March and others right until the beginning of the season Memorial day so folks will be staggering on for the next couple of months. Our probationary employees are back to work which we are happy to see them back. We had three folks could have returned to duty and we are very happy to have them back in our Park community. We still have a permanent hiring freeze except for emergency services and security positions we are not allowed to proceed with any permanent hiring. The good news there is we have been able to make a job offer for an assistant fire management officer, and hopefully they will be boarding in the next few weeks. Certainly, by the summer we will have an assistant fire management officer on the ground here at the Cape which we are excited about. 
We are operating under a full‑year continuing resolution you may recall Congress averted a shut down by passing a full year of continuing resolution it is based on the prior year's budget. We are roughly operating FY '24 levels, but this was not a totally clean CR.  There  were a lot of writers on this resolution we don't have the final number from the regional office and expect to have as soon and expect it to be about what we had last year but don't have a final number yet. 
As old business, we talked about in January, but I will give an update on the Marconi Stairs.  The Friends of Cape Cod National Seashore had a very successful fundraiser to replace the stairs at Marconi. The team has been working behind‑the‑scenes, it's too early to do work on the bluff because we are still subject to storms, but we have begun work on components they can build in the shop that would then be brought out to the bluff toward the end of this month.  We are keeping an eye on the weather. 
We also have a design for the Cable Road multimodal path talked about that in the January meeting that's going to be a connector path hopefully, from Nauset road all the way out to Nauset Light Beach.  It will connect the Nauset High School to the beach. it broke to the beach we will connect to the high school out to the beach. My son is there and through his eyes I see often those kids are using the beach and facilities and certainly being able to keep them off the road will be great as well as all of the members of the public who will be able to access that. We are excited about that project that design is just kicking off and  there will be opportunity for public engagement as we start the design Phase of that work. 
You probably noticed when you pulled into the parking lot it is all dirt.  It's getting repaved. So, the Salt Pond Visitor Center, the Doane Rock parking picnic area and parking lot and Nauset Road is a road itself that will be paved later this spring so that is underway.  
We were really excited we were able to complete the prescribed burn at Fort Hill.  The first time we've been able to have fire on the ground for a long time, wanted to call out the support from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.  We had an AmeriCorps crew and full‑time employees from DCR who participated with our National Park Service fire crews, and it was a successful day. 
I think we talked about this in January but wanted to say how happy we are that the Johnson Golf has been awarded the 10-year contract to continue to operate the Highland Links.  The Highland Links is the 9-hole golf course under Park service ownership but managed to a concession contract.  Johnson golf has been our operator so glad to continue to work with them. Restrooms and other public facilities will start coming online as our seasonals come online, mind that's a staggered opening to the Spring I did not print out an entire list but is available on our website if folks are wondering when will this vault toilet or public place open. It is all starting to come back on. 

Shorebirds are arriving.  Mike Fee, I was at Longnook yesterday and saw plovers.  So, our shorebird staff is coming on starting to do the fencing.  The symbolic fencing to keep folks out of nesting habitat, so it’s the true harbinger of Spring. More conversation with the fire crew come down in the next few weeks with the target of having them do mechanical clearing along some of our fire roads.  That is one of the four priorities the park has for our fire program hopefully, that will come together will get some work done on the fire roads.  
The last update I have for today is we have been able to secure funding for the Bartlett House.  That is the park-owned house above Coast Guard beach we've been concerned about the bluff encroachment there.  We have submitted that package to contracting and will move forward with that removal. We don't have a particular date but anticipate will happen probably in the Fall. We have funding and are going to contracting so that is set forward there. That is the high-level, highlights for the park. 
SHEILA – better news than we were anticipating.
LILLI ANN>> Thank you. Thank you for the update that was very helpful. I have a couple of clarifications. You said the stairs for Marconi, are they being built in‑house or is that subcontracted? 
JEN>> Our team is building them. 
LILLI ANN>> Okay. I thought it was always subcontracted out.
JEN>> No, we always have the option of contracting work we have technical expertise in park to do it, we have done it both ways for their project the stairs prior to this set that were washed away in September were under a contract, but our team chose to do it in‑house this time. 
LILLI ANN>> That is really interesting news. As far as the plovers, it is my understanding from people like the tern interns (is that right?) that the plovers were in all six towns last year?  ‑‑ on the beaches? 
JEN>> I can't remember.  I read the shorebird report, but I’d have to check.  I don't recall I would want to look it up. 
LILLI ANN>> Remarkable news  ‑‑ even previous years. The other thing with the concession in up in Provincetown, I know Farland is not doing it again after 12 years? 
JEN>> Yes, they have shut down their operation, we are working to get that concession contract business opportunity to the public this summer and Leslie and I are working with our team to see if we have alternatives this year. 
LILLI-ANN>> They do such a great job. When I heard from the public 
JEN>> We were disappointed to see that close. 
RICH>> Okay. 
JOANNA>> Have a question about the path is it something we think will be ready this Summer?  ‑‑ [Inaudible] 
JEN>> No. We are just starting design now.  Do we have a timeline yet?  
RICH >> Other and questions? Thank you, Superintendent, for a thorough report. Let's go to old business the ADU subcommittee report first that is more straightforward. 
HEATHER>> Last meeting our Chair set up a small subcommittee to discuss very narrow topic on the subject of ADU accessory dwelling units in the seashore and really to try to get a handle or potential scope of how many might be built there.
We met and week ago Friday and included Dave, Lilli-Ann, Michael Fee is the new Truro alternate today and Jennifer. We had a good discussion we started with a report by me just based on some analysis the Cape Cod Commission GIS staff had done looking at how many single family home lots exist in each of the towns. I think we have been provided with a copy of our draft minutes which included a slide I put together on those numbers. I think it's important to note that the numbers included don't include all of the separate parcel within each town, they are just the parcels that either have a single‑family home on them presently or have the potential to have a single‑family home on them and that is relevant to the ADU, the state ADU law. 
It has to have an existing primary dwelling physical dwelling on the lot in order for a ADU to be allowed. I will note Michael reported fewer than what are indicated in that slide I provided based on his conversations with town staff. Some relevant provisions of the affordable home act that are relevant to the question of the potential include the fact it needs to be the parcel needs to be a single‑family zoning district, needs to have single family home on it. Also important are the affordable homes act does not allow for dimensional requirements; standard zoning dimensional requirements are not a constraint on the development of an ADU also the ADU can be built either within an existing building or as a separate accessory structure. Those are important considerations; one piece is a consideration of additional buildings within the seashore the other is a consideration within an existing building you might have more people potentially and then more traffic. 
Some constraints that are relevant to this question also there are others within the affordable home act a town has the option to limit short‑term rentals, it's an option within the act, and the septic provisions are an aspect that are really hard to get your arms around without looking at individual lots, so we did not attempt to talk about that. I will also note the Affordable Home Act did not allow towns to require occupancy. Each of the representatives reported on the anticipated effects of the law in their town to the extent they were able.  I think we agreed more work needs to be done on this just to engage town staff as an example Lilli-Ann hoped the town planner could attend but she was not well so that did not work out. We did have the discussion about potential likelihood of ADUs being built and the expectation that most town staff in the three towns present the discussion would likely permit request for ADUs, so I think the long and short of it is our initial take is potential for change could be significant.
The ADU law I will note it allows for reasonable regulation, but you can't rely on minimum lot size to regulate potential because they affordable home act does not allow for that basically even an undersized lot can accommodate an ADU. Similarly, setback requirements are not necessarily for owner occupancy as I indicated. At the same time, I think it is important to note that ADU regulations say there is provision right at the beginning that they should not conflict with any federal law. I think that is an open question about the implications for that. And to the final note and I will invite any member of the committee to chime in the end of the discussion Michael noted he recognized there might be some room for some coming together of perspective on this and is going to go back and talk with town staff about potential proposals that might help address concerns about changes in character and potential ADU development. With that, that is my summary. I invite other members of the subcommittee to chime in. 
RICH>> Thank you for the subcommittee for good work. First, maybe it sounds Mike like you might want to elaborate. 
MIKE FEE>> Sure. I think that was a good summary I think we had a good discussion at the subcommittee meeting. For sure, Truro's perspective is different than a lot the other member towns I tried to explain that the subcommittee it's almost 70% within the seashore we have some of the highest real estate prices in the Commonwealth more one of them a lowest median income so the housing in Truro is significant for us. As a result, we adopted a bylaw recently allowing ADU's and that includes in the seashore in this of course, it's an interpretation of federal law the superintendent does not agree with, and we have begun to discuss the nature of that disagreement in short and without getting highly technical we believe in interpretation of federal regulation will allow ADUs in the seashore if they comply with certain criteria. In essence, making an ADU comply with the neighborhood and character and comply with all other state laws regarding septic and things of that nature. I would note Truro's bylaw is more restrictive than the Affordable Home Act it does limit size to 900 s.f. and  require the ADU be owned by the same person that owns the priority dwelling and does prohibit any kind of short‑term rental so there are built in already within our zoning bylaw protections we think form the basis for perhaps a compromise that would meet both the town’s affordable housing needs as well as the seashore's stated desire to maintain true to character. You are correct in your statement I was going to go back to staff and have talked to staff where that goes next is still in process, but we hope to put together a letter that summarizes where we are coming from to keep the dialogue going. One other thing I slightly disagree with the commission's interpretation of the potential impact of ADUs and sent you our analysis no more than 50 potential lots could support the various criteria necessary to have ADU under our bylaw. That number different from the Commission's estimate and I would note in the past three years we have had only two applications. 
JEN>> When you refer to the "commission" in your statements you mean the Cape Cod Commission not this Federal Advisory Commission? 
MIKE>> Absolutely. 
RICH>> And that point a potential ADU action Item 78 you say the number is 50? 
MIKE>> Correct. 
RICH>> Thank you. I think the issue is pretty dramatic and total as a number I do want to hear from the other towns has 211 potential. 
LILLI-ANN>> Yes, because while not the same depth of analysis you have to narrow down the exact number that would comply given all of the other circumstances like setbacks and whatnot, the printout I got from the town planner said 254 properties, but ‑‑ so, again, we have more properties then what is the commission had said but I don't know how many of them in the end I heard different things and then Tom from different people who have been on the planning board in my town over the years and they are saying dramatically lower number would actually comply. I don't know the answer to that, however, so what Truro writes would be very valuable for our town to review. I know Commissioner Ryan had talked about your personal views in my personal views may vary from my town views and I ‑‑ the state is writing regulations that is what I was told. While they are writing them. If they are writing them and there's a chance for public comment, we should have our antennas up. 
HEATHER>> They have already ‑‑ they are out, and I think some of them, my read of them is that they when push comes to shove, they, may supersede local interests in constraining ADU development. 
LILLI ANN>> What does that mean? 
HEATHER>> Michael was describing an owner occupancy requirement; the state regulations don't allow for that kind of requirement. 
LILLI-ANN>> And the state would overwrite the time? That doesn't help us. 
>> I know the County Administrator was working on this issue with our state Senator, Julian Cyr and that was I understanding was going to be in the regulations perhaps and they would reach out they've gone beyond that as opposed to any so that has to be done moving on from that. 
RICH>> We have Sue, please. 
SUSAN ARESON>> Can you hear me? I'm trying to get on my camera. 
RICH>> Go ahead. 
SUSAN>> I have a question, and this is essentially what Lily was just speaking about in Truro’s assessment, the universe we looked at was minimum lot size and with a dwelling for enough property without a dwelling to have a house on the seashore minimum lot size and the seashore is three acres. So, we came up with the number 50. If the state regulation supersede local zoning, then it's a different story. That is a real question because the minimum lot size outside the seashore of Truro is three quarters of an acre, I don’t know what it is in Wellfleet, I guess the question is whether the Affordable homes act will override our local zoning that is not what I have understood I think that's a pressing question to be answered. Thanks. 
RICH>> Good point. 
SHEILA>> Especially not that they are going to override no matter where it is but to me it should be looked at as a different situation because it's [Inaudible]. How can they supersede that? Federal law comes first. 
RICH >> We started the subcommittee to figure out the Federal mandate to preserve land and now it's got a couple of more complications. 
SHEILA >> If I can follow up, I had this conversation with the Lieutenant Governor and with the Secretary of Environment and Energy and they were stunned how did we not look at the National Seashore they were going to take that back, but I think that needs to be pushed more. 
RICH>> Thank you. That is helpful. 
LARRY>> The question I asked before my understanding if you have an existing dwelling on the seashore, the seashore regulation you can expand to a certain percentage with permission and have an ADU that is attached.  So it seemed as to the kind of ADU attached if you meet all of those regulations is not prohibited on the seashore as opposed to an ADU a completely separate structure and I know Jennifer was going to look at that and if that is the case it does affect your deliberation you are talking about existing structures and somebody adding on to that structure maybe if they meet the seashore requirement mistaken and on the other requirements as well as local zoning they can do it, as opposed to try to put an ADU on a lot totally separate which I don't think under the Seashore regulation you can do. 
JEN>> Larry to your point it fell off my radar but the legal question, this is all predicated on the enabling legislation definition of an improved property  ‑‑ a single dwelling if you have basically a duplex, is that still a single dwelling or is that now two dwellings? If you have a mother-in-law, the apartment but now two entrances I did not ask that legal question. I just highlighted for myself. 
RICH>> That would be really helpful to have that restrict the potential if that's the case. 
LARRY>> One last thing. Orleans in terms of a trend they have some in the pipeline ‑‑ it's starting to happen. 
RICH>> Any within the boundaries of the seashore? 
LARRY>> No they don't have many residential buildings. 
RICH>> They used to in the old days. 
HEATHER>> Just to build in this discussion about existing structures, I think might read of the Affordable Homes Act someone could choose to create a separate entrance within an existing structure and provide a kitchen and the rest of it in that separate apartment within an existing structure, that would be allowed under the Affordable Homes Act as an ADU I think that is why the Cape “Cod Commission's numbers are higher than the towns, not looking at any of the constraints at the local level but that potential you can have an ADU and every single one of the single‑family dwelling in the seashore district. It might not have an outward appearance on these structures, but it would have implications for more human beings, traffic, water use, wastewater generation, etc.   
RICH>> Moving back up to we started this discussion was when we became aware of the potential conflict to the federal mandate to preserve open space at the park as it is in this new mandate from the state to increase affordable housing, the first instant was I think one of the recommendations from the group we can make was it's not going to happen in Cape Cod National Seashore because of the federal mandate let's be sure to understand the implications might be if it supersedes the Cape Cod National Seashore there are going to be serious building impacts and I don't think any of us are looking to impact or to contradict basic mandate here which is to protect Cape Cod National Seashore as it is. I would ask us to consider a position now that we know the impact of the ADU may be significant to go back to our original instinct which it does not apply to Cape Cod National Seashore and I'm happy to hear Lieutenant Governor seems to have the same legal position we have. That may be the end of the discussion. 
SHEILA>> It could be. We have to maybe appeal to them could you make that clear because it is going to impact that that as I expressed to the Secretary of energy and Environment just because number one the national seashore is what is left let's look at what we are out here the national seashore was protected because it's fragile, beautiful part of this peninsula, and without the National Seashore I'm sure a lot of that ‑‑ why do people come here since we are a tourist-based economy left look at the impact what is going to do. We are not going to solve the housing problem it could be looked at as a regional solution, Eastham's building I know there's a proposed development that's not going to be that site however there is going to be additional subunits, and once you build these units, they are open is not going to solve the problem of it local, there's no guarantee even if we build it, they get it. To me, we have to look at the resource we have the benefit it gives us as far as tourism, and if that isn't there why are people coming here? That is the draw, that is the draw for all of us, is it not? Shame on us but we are here now, but the fact is there is times I feel guilty being out here year-round because I think it's something that needs to rest. I think we have to look at our future as well as the present and what can we solve what can we not and how can we support maybe other towns that are actually able to create this housing without impacting the seashore. It's not just the seashore the way building is going privately and private lots, I see them everywhere and they are huge, and nobody is saying anything so it’s not the character of the Cape anymore,  it's been huge modern houses, there is a lot of things people are not considering when they look at this immediate need and everybody wants to fix it, that is great, but we could be killing the golden goose. 
RICH>> If I could add, the 1959 mandate was to reduce ‑‑ the park had unlimited funds back when it was created it might yet very well acquired and eliminated several hundred houses which is federal law and we all agreed to the towns, the state and the National Park was going that direction unfortunately the park didn’t have unlimited funds, so there are still these buildings within the boundaries we are now discussing expanding are doing things with. The original mandate was reduced change or expand. Comment? 
LILLI-ANN>> It really is a shame the state didn't realize there was a national seashore here and did not come down and have meetings here and try to resolve this issue which obviously Truro has issue, Wellfleet has an issue, Seashore has an issue.  we all have our personal views. My understanding from the County administrator is the law is not going to be changed. I know Boston is exempt, that is something that is true. But there should be a way through this, with taking into account Truro’s position and Wellfleet’s position in the seashore position and maybe the subcommittee meets again with somebody from the state who comes down and that maybe could find a solution that works for everybody. 
RICH>> That's one possibility. What do you think the Lieutenant Governor Saint it's a done deal? 
SHEILA>> She just said I did we forget the national seashore wrote it down. This was public comment. I also was told to approach August about this, and  he will be there next week. Approaching there. He's with the head of housing now. And development. 
RICH>> Okay. So, Michael Dutton is our County administrator. Did you discuss this with him? 
SHEILA>> The commissioners were very concerned and thought they should write a letter. He's looking into the details so we can craft it. 
RICH>> My discussion with him was in order to exempt the national seashore from the ADU. 
SHEILA>> And we have a newer consulting legal to help us with that language of an amendment. 
RICH>> That would solve some of our problems. 
SHEILA>> What they are proposing is somewhat thoughtful and trying to respect the seashore plus address a need if their restrictive guidelines are being overridden that's not helping either, I'm not saying not to go through with what the town has designated that is perfectly within your rights, but to be able to say I don't care what Truro says I'm going with AHA, and I can overrule that. You don't want that, either. I think if we just went by the federal law and the towns work with the seashore work on zoning restrictions and respectfully think I'm not having an issue with that I'm having an issue with the blanket forget the rules and you can go in and do what you want. 
RICH>> Sue you have your hand we have Michael first then Susan next. 
MICHAEL>> I'm not sure where we are procedurally in terms of what we are posing and are talking about maybe we are just sharing our feelings now. 
RICH>> We are sharing but the goal to find a consensus and anything is open this is an advisory group. 
MICHAEL>> Said some things some of which I agree in some I respectfully disagree what I am going to say. Whether this commission takes a position with respect to the Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act, it's not germane to Truro, Truro has a bylaw it intends to implement work out its issue with the seashore and the way it feels necessary. One of the things you said reading people and places in the outer Cape landscape character study in detail made me think when you talk about the seashore, goals and purpose I respectfully disagree its sole purpose was to create a museum or natural place that would be preserved in perpetuity. The impact of people living in the seashore is something this document takes very seriously, and I think the founders took very seriously. They realize people have lived here for generations and things change over time and there has to be a flexible reaction on the part of governing entities including the seashore how that is going to be maintained. And Truro does not want to become a museum. There are people that live there now that need some form of affordability that is why we are trying to pursue this dialogue with the Seashore and allow tools. I agree is not going to solve the affordable housing crisis it's a tool that might enable a teacher or a firefighter or a cop or daughter of somebody that lives in Truro now to be able to afford to stay there. That I think is worthwhile to continue the conversation in the commission as a whole believes it's much more cut and dry decision process, you are free to pursue that we just won't sign the letter respectfully dissent. I don't want to over talk Sue, but she may have a different view. 
RICH>> Well said. 
SHEILA>> We are not in disagreement how do you guarantee ‑‑ that's the problem. 
SUSAN>> Michael did not over speak.  We would not be in a position to sign a letter completely objecting, Ed Augustus is in a town as we are meeting here speaking about the seasonal communities act which is it another version that will allow even more leeway for providing affordable homes and the issue that has come up is communities are being asked to approve ‑‑ accept the seasonal homes act yet the regulations from the state have not yet been promulgated and will not be promulgated until sometime in the fall we are being asked at town meeting to approve them. There are some provisions in that act as well there are a lot of questions for the state here and I will leave it there. Thank you. 
JEN>> Can I ask a clarifying question? 
RICH>> Yes. 
JEN>> I guess this is to Michael and Sheila as I listened one thing that has come to my mind is how does exempting the seashore from the Affordable Homes Act prevent any of the towns from pursuing your own ADU regulation? Asking for an exemption from the Affordable Home Act prevents the town from mandating doesn't prevent the town doing something on their own case. I guess my confusion or question is for Truro, I don't want to make this against Truro, if you are exempted from the affordable homes act that puts us back to where we were in October which is a local conversation instead of a state‑mandated set of rules. 
MICHAEL>> Agreed. 
JEN>> Thank you. 
RICH>> For my benefit ‑‑ 
JEN>> Seashore district is what I meant. 
MICHAEL>> It as of right in all districts there is an exemption from that, then no longer what a homeowner have the right to ADU. Truro has a bylaw that says ADU only need building permits. 
>> And then ‑‑ 
JEN>> That is the professional disagreement here. 
JEN>> I guess my question was trying to seek to understand if the state chose to exempt the seashore district and towns from the ADU component of the Affordable Homes Act, would the towns have an object and that would still allow the town to do their local zoning there it would include the work they are already doing it would just not require it and it seems to me it would return sort of home rule back to the town and the seashore district they wouldn’t have the mandate. I'm not a lawyer I'm just trying to follow the conversation and summarize. 
LILLI-ANN>> As a follow‑up if that were the case, and Wellfleet had a special permit would that be acceptable to the park going forward? Mind you only one ADU in three years that has been applied for in the seashore district with that be acceptable if we remove the state‑mandated? 
JEN>> It doesn't change our legal conflict or our legal inconsistency which is the definition in the federal law of an improved property. It does seem ‑‑ it doesn't change anything. 
DAVID CRARY>> Eastham hasn't spoken and should. I have slightly fewer numbers of developable properties I think the difference might be the park owns eight of those structures I came up with 80 and who knows, the seashore could put on ADUs put house seasonal structures and that is not tongue‑in‑cheek but I think that is the difference between ‑‑ they seasonal ‑‑ I can never get the name right seasonal community designation which is coming up on town meetings for all the Chronicle area towns actually adds the tiny home which has wheels until they are taken off and add all those personal opinion, more tongue‑in‑cheek with the Michael Myers movie if I had $1 million and owned all the A/D structures up in the seashore area I would and I could I believe through Eastham zoning I would have to consult with the superintendent of the seashore because that is a requirement line in any activities in the district F. I think under zoning in certain sizes I could get through and then I would rent them out regardless of what other town laws say, but I believe that could happen I'm not necessarily for that. But there we go and I do recall attorneys Zehnder speaking at one of the meetings previously and apologies I did not look it up exactly, that he sent the way to deal with this is to have federal law that clarifies development in the seashore you have to promulgate that that could, would, might be difficult, but as a member but not conveying I think federal legislation would put the matter more to rest. Thank you. 
RICH>> Thank you. His suggestion was the current 1959 mandate that basically says no new development – improved structures
DAVID >> Just from no research but as I recall towns were up in arms with the seashore coming in and ruining lower Cape Cod in the seashore put forth if you have a single house you can put up to 50% and that was considered the law but it never was that, that is what seashore suggested to the towns TO IMPLEMENT and some did and some didn't and I don't think Truro did. The thing with that ‑‑ going back to future legislation is each of those towns you have the zoning bylaws we have the zoning Board of Appeals in my million dollars own all this, zoning Board of Appeals usually brands most appeals if they aren't too egregious and especially with the state legislation signed in furthering upcoming seasonal community act thing then I would think people in the zoning Board of appeals in all towns currently in the future might bend and say we will allow that and that gets around our discussions here anyway based on five or seven person board in a town until it goes back to legals and lawyers again. In Eastham, you can build on the seashore after consulting doesn't say the rules, but the rules have certain parameters, but those rules are further governed by an appeal process which in my memory and most lower Cape towns most of those appeals go to not just the Seashore but docks, wharfs, setback and even conservation type things. 
RICH>> Thank you. Mark, do you have words of wisdom for us? 
MARK ROBINSON>> Yes. I wanted to call in a couple of things, Larry is talking about the 50% guideline for expansion of existing dwellings can accommodate and ADU attached to a single‑family home. You can also build a house, brand new house with a covered breezeway and that is as far as I know not considered a detached dwelling I don't know if anybody has a comment on that, but the enlarging of a house for single‑family teams is much different than having a second family under the same roof just in terms of these impacts more people, more cars, traffic and water. I think there is ‑‑ it's kind of splitting laws here I'm concerned about any town that would be thinking the national seashore is a platform on which to provide expansion to population when we know the hundreds and hundreds of houses in the non‑seashore part of town that is where you are going to accommodate this population increase and you should that is where facilities, infrastructure is to the extent some of our small towns have infrastructure they are getting more of it every day. Why not just recognized the seashore is a special place? You've done that in your zoning bylaw by creating a seashore district. Walk the walk instead of talking the talk and leave the seashore alone leave the seashore out of it this is not where we are going to solve the issue. I would just be very careful about increasing density in the Seashore it goes against everything we've been trying to accomplish for the past 60 years. 
RICH>> Thank you, Mark. You are correct about the seashore's mission I know ‑‑ how it gets separated. We've been around ‑‑ I am trying to formulate a summary of consensus a recommendation. It is not clear to me exactly what we need to say to the superintendent as our nature of function and recommendation we can make to the superintendent high think that is where we have to start and if not, we ‑‑ 
LARRY>> When Jennifer gets the opinion  If the opinion is he can't do it that kind of solves the problem. 
RICH>> It's true. 
LARRY>> So we all have interests for a variety of reasons but that may solve the problem. 
JEN>> I guess in this is about half of what is in my slides for the next topic which is this conversation on character because they are so intertwined, right? Maybe it makes sense to pivot the character conversation and do the rules of order at the end of the meeting it feels like we are halfway in the conversation already. To Larry's point one of the things that I keep going around, it's my first slide, the fact is that ADUs are inconsistent with Federal law,  it's not a penalty it's not a civil penalty the penalty is that someone doesn't get a certificate of suspension for condemnation. As A manager and as a person who cares deeply about this place is that penalty doesn't have teeth anymore, we talked about that multiple times over the year and 1/2 we met together. I think it continues to demonstrate to me that the burden of this responsibility is on the towns because I can pull a certificate suspension condemnation but that will not prevent somebody from building two ADUs if they want. It's just not. It really to me the more I think about this and the more I read, the testimony before Congress when the park was established in the subsequent studies seems like we do every 20 years to talk about what is important out here, it comes back around again to the way this park was established which was to be a shared responsibility. My solicitors I suspect will fully tell me what they consistently said the definition of an improved property is a single dwelling with accessory buildings the solicitor's opinion that precludes the ADUs,  is my tool is to withdraw certificate suspension condemnation, we can see a lot of landowners don't exercise the right asking us for one. What was important to people in the 60s and 70s has lost importance over time. I think this conversation about what is within the town's span of control is what are the towns willing to do to protect this place comes back around to me over and over. Heather, I don't know where you see sort of next steps. I don't know that I think work that was done but I defer to as the Chair an alternate Chair and the subcommittee Chair, I would be happy to continue to participate in a discussion, but I think all of these threads get interwoven together. 
RICH>> Go ahead. 
HEATHER>> I was thinking the exact thing. We have my colleague Sarah Korjeff from the commission, and you have introductory slide before she presents, and it all comes back to how do the towns help support the ongoing preservation of the seashore. 
RICH>> With that said and let's put that on hold. Thank you for your comments so far. I think you should introduce your colleague think that's next. 
JEN>> I have two set the stage and then Sarah has the microphone. When we were thinking about the Cape Cod model it was groundbreaking in establishing a new way National Park units are set up.  We talked about that, but I think it's important to continue to put that in the forefront it was not intended, I can't remember who said it might have even been Larry, to set aside draw a line around it, buy everything, and with town land federal land, private property and that is part of what makes the Seashore special. Go ahead, Adam. 
>> I will remind you our legislation ‑‑ I every read this over and over there's no big introductory paragraph this is what we intend echoes writing to the meat, section 1 it established the boundary it said these are the lines this is the line within which the federal government can secure land to establish a part. It set parameters how we would acquire. We did not have unlimited funds we had 16 million dollars so what could we get with 16 million dollars in 1961 is what the park service and work with the Department of Interior had to work with a put this protection in place the suspension of condemnation for folks developing their properties prior to September 1st, 1959 put a requirement on the town to have valid zoning bylaws approved by the secretary in the 1960s that act, that was an affirmative process, submitted to the secretary and the secretary actually sent them back over time it has become the superintendent working with the towns, engage in the bylaw process, but we haven't had secretarial approval for some time. It defines improved property that definition we keep coming back to and it set minimum zoning standards, so the 3 acres, the setbacks, those came up of the regulation, but it set really broad parameters it was not helpful in terms of our conversation about what it is we are trying to protect. This is my last slide to attempt to launch us into perhaps a conversation beyond just scope and scale which is kind of where we have been stuck. In prepping for today I was thinking about the land use plan David Crary reference so 1960 the park was established there's a lot of engagement in the towns back‑and‑forth about bylaws between the park service and the secretary and town in the 70s we start to see a lot of development. As the Towns and the park started to think about how do we protect what is special about us the land use plan was developed with the seashore and it was a public process and it is where we identified additional properties to procure, areas of special interest and it had an appendix that was the use guidelines they were private property is that document we keep harboring back to where we had an opportunity perhaps to make stronger federal regulations and we didn’t  and they were shared with the town, Eastham very aggressively adopted almost perfectly the use guidelines they took them and made them town bylaws. Other towns, the pieces that resonated with them they supported but it was really inconsistent, so we started to see this split among the seashore towns as to what their bylaws said. The 80s we saw some action and I worked here in the' 90s without we were getting lots of properties turned over they need not see a lot of movement in this area.  We saw a lot of activity in 2000, McMansions were in vogue more and more big construction, was happening and the Blasch House in  Wellfleet Harbor became the poster child of how did we allow this to happen within the seashore?  And I think Wellfleet within our town and again we saw bylaws adapted, zoning, Wellfleet responded and made updates to their bylaws we have this 20-year cycle where this topic gets a lot of interest and we make progress and then things seem pretty good and we kind of rest on our laurels, and  that a new threat kind of pops up and we engage again. I don't know we have a new threat I think this conversation around expanding ADUs the ability for people to buy houses with all cash folks needing a mortgage was a bit of a regulator on consistency because companies asked for certificate of suspension of condemnation‑‑ when someone uses cash they don't have to care. We all want affordable housing I make the most money of anyone on the seashore and I can't afford to buy a house here I want to live here my entire adult life, and I will not likely retire here because I cannot afford to live here, I don't doubt for a minute affordable housing is not a crisis, but I don't know the seashore is a solution. I took a workshop by the conservation called balancing in rural communities and I've been thinking about that one of the things I took away was a slide that said no place is special by accident. You have to be intentional about keeping the thing that makes your place special. I am really excited to hear from Sarah and I really appreciate your engagement helping us think about do we have the right guardrails in place? Do we have the right protections in place to keep what makes us special into perpetuity? 
RICH>> Thank you. Great interaction. No place is special by accident, that resonates. Sarah, where is yours? 
SARAH KORJEFF, CAPE COD COMMISSION >> Thank you. Thanks for having me I am preservation specialist for the Cape Cod Commission on the planning staff for 30 years now. We will try to hit the same points home. Want to talk to you about character that's been my specialty working for the commission and I will show you how the Cape Cod Commission approaches the idea specifically acknowledging is not consistent throughout 15 of our towns it can be recognized there's a lot of variation. I want to talk about defining character and moving into the idea of challenges and threats to the character and maybe more importantly, what are ways we can protect the tangible aspects of our character? And I want to see specifically included that word  "tangible" I think we recognize there are other social changes going on in our region and we can't really control those to zoning and other aspects. I want to focus on the physical elements of our character I believe we do have some control over and move on to questions and some discussion. 
Starting with defining character. We use the idea of character defining features. Sort of borrowing that from historic inventory work which is how I began with the commission went we ‑‑ historic inventory we are always identifying what are the character features of this building a property? What are the elements of its design, architecture landscape and make it recognizable and distinct? That includes things like the size and scale of the buildings on the property, the style the architectural style of the building. In particular historic buildings the density, closeness and arrangement of the structures on the property. And finally, the qualities of the landscape. Walking into each of those in more detail looking at the size and scale we are talking about building height, also the building massing the scale of the structure so how large does it appear on the landscape relationship to other buildings in the vicinity? The roof forms, the illustration here is meant to sort of illustrate some of the building that are traditional building forms in our region sloped roofs,  gable roofs are typical for the region. You can have small simple building forms which is a simple gable roof or a larger form that has complex elements to the roof firm with gables of different shapes and sizes. And this is meant to illustrate the idea of buildings and proximity to each other and how they are set in the landscape on the bluff, on the water, things like that. The idea of additive massing when you have a structure some of our traditions for expanding buildings over time, as the family grows wealth increases additive massing, so additions folks go out typically and end up with the elongated structures that have several different elements each have their own separate roof form and help tells the story how a building evolves over time. By the time the national seashore was established we had buildings here for hundreds of years that had gone to quite a bit of evolution and added massings. Those make up the traditional architectural forms we referred to. 
The architectural details we see in a building can tell us about the history. I refer to fashion in history and make this reference at any time you see a poodle skirt you think about the 1950s and it can be very similar with architectural style if we see Greek revival architectural style on Cape we know it is from the 1830s same thing with Cape Cod style that will be from the 1700s and the early part of the 1800s and so on to historian architectural forms so it's important we keep this character defining architectural details on our structures to help understand from a glance when an area was developed in sort of how it has evolved over time. So, form and scale of these buildings and the architectural details on them help us understand the history of the area and I think it's particularly important with the Cape Cod National Seashore in terms to protect that character we have several different examples here from seashore towns, but they all tell us a little bit about the evolution of those. Back to density and arrangement of buildings which is important looking at things to tell us how and why an area was developed so proximity to the road tells us how important that was to the folks who built that house, proximity to other buildings so the top right is part of the Sandwich Glass factory housing in Sandwich.  These buildings were very close to the factory and very close to each other that tells us a lot about development in that area so the organization or layout we can have a completely different situation like the lower left image which is an old farmstead set well back from the roadway and is surrounded by the lawn area and barn to the rear; it's got outbuildings that convey the fact this was a working landscape. That relationship to natural resources is an important aspect of us understanding why building was constructed where it was and what role it had a community and the folks that lived there what role they had in the community. This gets into traditional development pattern that were unique to the Cape and help us define the character of our keep in particular in this idea is carried forward and placed types will be recognized the region is not all the same from a character perspective and we've identified areas of different density and character that needs to be treated differently in the regulations. Getting a little bit more into qualities of the landscape we would be recognizing in an attempt to understand the character of an area. It can be wide open landscape where we have expansive views across a natural feature can be wooded with a much more enclosed feeling and much more limited use you could be along the water or sort of a more in them farmstead area you can have stone walls to help defined boundaries of fields are not. And the whole idea of these farmsteads and maritime areas perpetuating the traditional industries that really helped the Cape to grow that represents so much of our development over much of the region’s history. These are aspects of cultural landscapes these are natural features that sort of complements the other development the mandate development in the area, but they actually helped to tell the story of the evolution of the region. They are not just natural features they also have an historical element to them. 

This study has been mentioned a couple of times the 2004 NPS landscape character study. they identified 6 cultural landscape types on the outer Cape they are the great beach, waterways, town centers and harbors, farms and forests, transportation corridors and homes are kind of residentially focused areas, and I think when you read the document you will go into much more detail, but they really call out those ideas of how closely and tightly developed these areas are, how dense the buildings are how landscape plays a role in it. 
That moves to the ideas challenges and threats to these character features. I want to start again with the comment, but we think we can control because we recognize change is constant and when you talk about landscapes and natural resources change is constant. With landscapes and cultural landscapes in particular, we recognize you have to manage them in order to prevent change from happening. I think that is in contrast with development of building and structures in the landscape where zoning has the potential to put limits or guide in particular ways. Focusing on physical changes I think the different towns within the seashore can address things like increase in building size that is something within your purview changes in lot coverage and loss of historic buildings. Back to this 2004 landscape-character study they identify a number of challenges and threats from this time period, and I think many of you have voiced some of these similar ideas but specifically called on development that began to encroach on the beach which they defined as a wide-open undeveloped landscape and increase use of landscapes around waterways, so higher intensity uses impacting natural resources in changing the character of development around those waterways. They were concerned about development being drawn outside of the traditional town centers and how that would not only change the scale of development outside of the town centers but moving some of the vitality out of the town centers which would have a longer-term effect. The decline of agricultural landscapes on the outer Cape, and the last two the importance of sand roads to the informal character in the region and design and location of development along the Route 6 corridor that goes hand in hand with the idea of moving development outside of the town centers. 
That is one group of threats identified in 2004 I think we can agree we are still concerned about many of them. It doesn't mean we haven't taken steps to help address them. I found this in my own files I had saved this, this is a newspaper pull out from the Cape Cod Times in 2008 which is like a 5-page spread about the challenge Cape Cod National Seashore’s growing problem of McMansions threaten park landscape pitting private landowners against public interest.  This came to a head when the when Blasch house  was proposed.  They knocked down a billboard house, as it was called, and the Blasch house was proposed instead.  Cape Cod Times did a focused piece on how much development was allowed around at the current in the towns. Wellfleet zoning regulations would allow and roughly they found on a 3-acre parcel Wellfleet allow 15,000 square‑foot building that is the size, they show the illustration of both the Wellfleet Town Hall and Library that would be allowed on a single 3-acre parcel in the Cape Cod National Seashore.  Thank you, Cape Cod Times, for helping everyone understand what was allowable scale the town before this came out had already run the alarm bell and began to work on things and they found that fall in October regulations to help limit that. Wellfleet did adopt stricter zoning in 2008, Truro followed suit, Eastham already adopted the National Park Service guidelines as zoning regulation and Eastham had already adopted residential scale bylaw that applied both inside and outside seashore. Yay Eastham.  The whole idea of expansion building recognizing there are over 500 private individual properties and zoning rate in 2008. 
So, what about today? I think what we fear are some of the same things, the potential for large building additions to existing structures the potential for increased building height for a lot more outbuildings of larger scale not necessarily being proposed because of agricultural uses it's more for entertainment value. In these other designed outdoor spaces pool houses, pools, large designed and manicured landscapes that are impervious. I have as an illustration here recognizes the big picture idea is the cover of our community design technical bulletin which the focus is on context sensitive design, I want to bring it back to the idea at looking at specific context of specific areas need regulations that acknowledged that specific context and character. 
The other threat I want to mention today I think is the loss of historic buildings. There has been an increased number of historic buildings particularly recently these three images on the top is a building in Eastham outside the national seashore that was lost pretty recently and two below are buildings currently under demolition delay in the Town of Wellfleet and they are not the only ones. We have seen some of our oldest historic structures are now subject to demolition delay in some of the seashore towns that increase is concerning to me. the fact there are very few properties where demolition of an historic property would be preventable within a local historic district you can deny a demo request if a property was on the national register of historic places and not in a local district proposed for demolition that could be subject to review by the Cape Cod commission and there are very few places where that is the case on the outer Cape to that is something that could perhaps change. 
Moving into ways to protect our tangible community character, what I want to talk about here is the idea of refining zoning so it really applies specifically to the neighborhood character of different areas, adopt design guidelines and standards using the Cape Cod commission resources which would range from guidelines to zoning interest.  The idea of adopting a district of critical planning concern which is a tool made possible and the idea of strengthening historic review. Updating zoning and design standards means to paying attention to dimensional regulations this is something that towns have done somewhat recently looking at things like maximum building height, maximum footprint, the square footage of the structure and how many floors it's allowed to have, and I think I've think maximum lot coverage.  I think most of the neighborhoods in the seashore we think of modest homes with informal outdoor spaces and that has the potential to change into land coverage not just for the primary building.  Also looking at uses and remember we want, things you want to allow ‘by right’ to make it easy regulatory path for folks to do the right thing, but to require either higher levels of review are special permit process or things you're not so sure about because they might have a greater impact. Developing nonstandard work with a number of different communities to develop design guidelines or standards and to cater them to specific areas. And looking, thinking about things that are physically measurable: spaces, the size of spaces, height, width and length making sure there is a checklist so whatever board is reviewing them has an easy way making sure all these are elements covered. 
I want to encourage you to take advantage of the Cape Cod Commission resources.  We worked with all outer Cape towns at one time or another and zoning issues, but we had regional design guidelines we’ve developed, some elements which might be helpful for the towns to consider. We have put together models bylaws over the years one we made recently was developed were mixed use the idea of small commercial with residential we've done a lot of direct local technical assistance programs which uses State planning funds to work with a town a specific project we have done, zoning, we have helped Orleans develop design guidelines for downtown commercial area and we worked with Wellfleet and Truro back in 2008 and later when they were developing new zoning regulations for the seashore district. 
Another tool district of critical planning concern, they said once made available to the towns Cape Cod thru the Cape Commission Act.  One of the most important aspects of it is the legislation allows for a moratorium on development while new regulations are being prepared that is an option, not a requirement but most of the towns on the Cape that have adopted DCPC have taken advantage that moratorium to relieve development pressures while crafting new guidelines that happens over the course of up to 12 months. We have a number of towns that have done that, I think, some interesting examples for your commission to consider for the towns to consider are in Craigville, a village in Barnstable, we helped them develop neighborhoods overlay districts for the area there's four different neighborhood overlay districts within the Craigville area recognizing the different neighborhood characters, they have a very tightly developed historic religious camp meeting area, a development that runs along the Centerville River, and waterfront areas. We helped the town to develop specific dimensional standards and guidelines for each of those different areas and they have been in place for a number of years. I mentioned for Craigville they adopted regulations specifically to help discourage demolition of historic buildings by limiting any reconstruction to the existing building footprint and building height. Taking away the incentive to knock down anything.  Another example of the DCPC, more recently, in West Harwich that is what the image on the right is, essentially covers the commercial zone in West Harwich, but they were very concerned about new development coming in that is out of character with historic building so identified and maximum building footprint that  was within the range of existing buildings that were in the district and they again wanted to see historic structures protected so they decided to develop flexible development regulations for new development on a lot if a historic building was preserved.  They said you could exceed the dimensional regulation for new design as long as the historic property was preserved. 
And then finally in your toolkit the idea of various ways to protect historic resources. The idea of a local Historic District.  So Provincetown has a historic district covering much of their town center, those are the only locally governed historic districts in the outer Cape Massachusetts has under its historic district law the ability to develop single property local historic district and a number of towns in the state have done this and have done instead of doing like a neighborhood of buildings, they found in areas where development were very dispersed they would just identify the individual older structures as single properties for districts and have maybe 20 of them so that's a possibility is not been done yet on the Cape at least to my knowledge but has happened in Massachusetts and it would certainly provide more control at the town level and protection for demolition, against demolition of historic properties. 
There is the idea of enhanced demolition delay most of the Cape towns have a bylaw with a required delay of 12 to 1‑month meeting if you want to demolish a historically significant building you have to go before the historic commission, they would impose a delay if they believe the building is significant and you cannot demolish the building for that period of time but do not have the ability to deny a demolition request. In some cases, the demolition delay had a positive outcome, the person that is subject to the delay decided they don't feel like waiting they will sell to another person interested in preserving the building has happened in Wellfleet in a couple of cases. There are other people who are happy to wait out the delay. We have lost a number of buildings that way. Again, the delays are in the 12 to 18‑month range there are a number of towns outside the Boston area that recently adopted 21 or 24‑month delays with the idea lengthening it is more of a discouragement for people who are not interested in preserving the building maybe they might be more attracted to another parcel that doesn't have that kind of limitation on development. Two other things, preservation incentives I mentioned a couple that were adopted by Towns as part of their DCPC regulations but also Chatham adopted flexible zoning specifically for properties that preserve historic structures that is flexible setbacks and lot coverage regulation. 
And finally the idea of that Cape Cod Commission has regulatory review power that generally is used to review commercial properties over 10,000 s.f. or residential developments over 30 units but there are a number of other thresholds that bring in one is the demolition of National Register historic properties not otherwise protected by local districts so there is a benefit to having a national register designation in that sense and Wellfleet has a large national register district when there is a property proposed for demolition within that district it can trigger Cape Cod Commission review, but there are not many national register properties within the seashore defined area. Because many people aren't familiar with the CCC review of historic properties or with the historic property the whole idea  of the CCC reviewing demolition proposals is to fill in the gap for national register properties fill in a huge gap the fact these properties did not have any form of protection at least we can protect against demolition.  Also changes to those properties they are not addressed by local districts, so we reviewed both demolition and substantial alteration which essentially is demolishing the character defining features of the building, and we have a document that describes the process. 
That brings us back to discussion. I just threw out  a couple of questions that I think people might benefit from considering so what development are using now in the seashore? What kind of building permits are people requesting? How each of your town pass regulations possibly could be enhanced within the seashore boundaries, whether it is adapting guidelines or property protection and what can towns do to guide character in the seashore? I'm happy to answer any questions otherwise I look forward to discussion. 
RICH>> Thank you very much. 
RICH >> Really excellent. Thank you. Any follow‑up questions on anything specific? 
MICHAEL>> Maybe you can put some meat on this term, the phenomenon of the invisibility of incremental change. I read this with great interest in the study the 2004 study and wonder how do recognize something like that. As a plan or historic preservationist how do you describe what that really means phenomenon of incremental in– , the phenomenon of the invisibility of incremental change.
HEATHER>> I think of it as death by 1000 cuts every little incremental change might not seem that significant until you seen so many altogether think you finally realize you've lost, we had originally. I use that term with relation to the historic research we have that we keep losing three in that town five and that town and it adds up to the point where we don't have anywhere near the density of resources, we had in each one that remains becomes that much more important because it's one of a smaller number. I think it's important to pay attention to pay attention to those incremental changes, I have to also recognize early on we have to expect change and accommodate some level of change. I always try to say with historic properties, we want to keep the original historic element and add on to them. The idea of adding an addition on the rear or several small additions out the rear is something we have seen happen historically and I see no reason why that shouldn't continue as long as the original historic structure still remains so we can see how the building has evolved over time. It's okay to recognize that in current times, that will continue to evolve a little bit. I guess that is my response. 
RICH>> Sheila? 
SHEILA>> Just as an example you are all aware of this there was a historic house that actually called the commission and said, is anybody looking into this, off of Schoolhouse Road, I think one of your pictures was that house, I was happy that our historic commission asked the questions and made the statement it did during that hearing, but one gentleman did say you are not looking at this easy you just want to cut this down and build what you want.  By keeping the house, they are saying they couldn't tilt the house the size they wanted they desired, there is plenty around if they wanted to look for one already built. But you could keep the structure and add incorporate it into your new building I know I have family members in Pennsylvania that have this beautiful old farmhouse and I say you are not going to take this down they didn't they did sort of attached is very beautiful but complementary house to it and there are these types of thoughts people aren’t thinking about especially if they have endless cash that is what is happening as well. They didn't come from here they don't have that association of the land and importance of the structures of the land. Just get rid of this. This house was lived in by the Atwoods, it has many stories if it could speak. It will probably happen because all it has is the delay, and they choose to stretch that up.  This to me is a real threat to a lot of things and is reflective of where we are as a society just blow that out, we are annihilating everything.  This is stuff that is really important, and we do have to make an effort, work at it.  Ways to improve but keep it. 
RICH>> Mark has a question. 
MARK ROBINSON>> Thanks. Wonderful presentation by Sarah. I think she has devoted her career to preserving the history of the Cape. I think that needs to be applauded. I know we seem to focus more on the building fabric, talk about character and I do believe the Cape's character is a combination of history and beauty. I think the beauty is harder to define so we spent less time on it. I'm reminded in the mid‑1980s in North Truro it was a 22-lot subdivision approved at High Head and we ‑‑ the developer proposed a concrete baffle wall like the ones you see on Route 495 to protect his subdivision from the noise of Route 6. We are lucky we haven't seen any of those in the Cape yet, but as traffic increases there may come a day imagine the scenic view of High Head being blocked by a baffle wall.  Just a terrible thing to contemplate. I know a number of the towns having their open space plans tried to inventory scenic views on a local level. I'm pretty sure Orleans is one that I'm wondering if ‑‑ I glanced to the 2004-character study; I couldn't find specific scenic views. I'm wondering if the Seashore might think about that at some point. Public scenic views. 
RICH>> Thanks, Mark. I was involved with scenic preservation views in Hawaii years ago.  One of the things they wanted to the key to maintaining was rusted pickup trucks. They left dozens if not hundreds. They said that is what we think of. It can sometimes go the other way. Sarah, I want to ask if you ‑‑ you said [off microphone] generally any comment on ADU units we were discussing earlier . 
HEATHER>> I will not comment on the legislation.  I guess I did talk about this briefly with some others. I think it's fair to say the same way I can imagine that historic buildings can be sensitively expanded as long as the original historic building is preserved and it is added on in small additions out the back or small‑scale outbuilding clearly secondary to the original to the structure, I think is possible for ADUs to be accommodated in those scope of spaces in the same way I would say someone putting in addition under house but I'm looking at the physical fabric.   I think you've got another question about intensity of use, which is a separate question, but I can see the possibility if they were limited in scale and location and size and potentially in some areas requiring distinctive building materials. You could even set standards
RICH >> Would you go further and comment within the Seashore?
HEATHER>> Well frankly, I feel I could say the same thing about properties.  I recognize the one difference would be to acknowledging there are a lot of properties in the seashore that already met their 50% increase in floor area those cases I think it does make sense for the historic building to be prominent, you don't want there to have been so much expansion it becomes a small cousin of the rest of the development.  I think those cases if ADUs would be considered I suggest the better way would be an internal ADU. It isn’t actually adding s.f. on to the property.  It did seem like the presenters felt very clearly was that it was okay to place limits on size, scale, materials, style as long as they were well defined and related to the context of the area placing those kind of limits and ADUs was thought to be completely. 
SHEILA>> You mentioned an acronym. I couldn't hear. 
HEATHER>> Metropolitan Area Planning. 
DAVID >> May I? What I am going to do with my million dollars.   I'm going to buy for the 80 places of the seashore, what’s 2 times 80? Nauset Highschool Math,  160 shipping containers and weld them together I'm going to put them down on every house after I get the zoning Board of appeals to do that and for those 80 that's 160 workers in the Town of Eastham, I'm just making a statement ‑‑ 
>> Of somebody ‑‑ 
DAVID>> And I'm just going to spray paint them on the outside, probably maroon. I'm going to put on the slanted roof on the top consistent with the pitch of a mid-century modern house and windows, it's going, it can definitely change as you drive down towards Coast Guard beach.  To get them in there, I’ll have to cut trees down. 
>> [Multiple speakers] 
HEATHER >> Kudos to Dave to painting worst case scenario that's graphically helpful. When I was talking about some of the provisions of the Affordable Homes Act, I only focused on a few key issues that were relevant for the potential of ADU development there are other provisions that the address some of these concerns.  There's only one ADU protected  and ADU allowed under the Affordable Homes Act meaning under the provisions of the rest of the act, that's exempt from minimum lot size and zoning setbacks and things like that.  There are size limits.  The primary selling has to be the larger dwelling, and the act allows for reasonable regulation which gives back to Sarah's comment what she heard in the seminar about requirements they relate to materials and dimensions of the structure and things like that help get the character element. I just wanted to temper without taking away from I think the important point which is towns may need to do more to ensure we get what we want rather than rely on what we have ‑‑ the regulations we have now they may not ensure we get what we want. 
RICH>> Good point. Okay. Keeping an eye on the time and personal thank you all for your presentations, excellent.  do we want to try to make any take‑home points on this discussion for ourselves? Do we want to fashion recommendation to the superintendent about this issue going forward? The 1959 mandate that the Superintendent needs to maintain is the character of the Cape Cod National Seashore. That is where we started in 1959 and that may be a .  That is where we started the conversation the subcommittee is more complicated. I think this is not going to go away. We might just want to leave it as is for the time being. Having a couple of issues, you may want to take back to your group and dig into a little bit more are I am open to suggestions. 
LILLI-ANN >> We did spend a lot of time talking about ADUs and it's valuable all the way around the main topic today was character which was much larger, and I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to create some type of a report on that. I think all of us have and if we can run that back at another meeting because I think it's so much bigger than what we've been talking about certainly zoning is one thing, and then the natural environment what Mark talked about is something that I did a lot of research on as well in the document they sent for great and I think there are so many other components if we can bring this back at another meeting, I think we are not going to do it justice by talking at the end of the meeting kind of thing.  Maybe we can talk about the Rules of Order and bring this back at another meeting because it's a huge topic. 
RICH>> I think we agree. 
LARRY >> I agree.  Orleans, with the Commission’s help,  I won’t go through everything Sarah talked about, they have a set of design guidelines they are fascinated they are related to non‑zoning areas scalability, landscape, setbacks, Jen, I agree these literally have to coming to the towns but then they would affect potentially the seashore I can't see anything in here this seashore personally is going to object to in terms of the character of the Cape.  Orleans will start to have community meetings, and they are eventually going to turn into a zoning bylaw.  We might want to put this on for further discussion and I can leave these if you want to incorporate them into the record, they are really good. 
JEN>> I will remind you the June topic is update in progress on our 2024 focus areas, so it is intended to be really broad.  We've had some really in‑depth presentations to get everyone the same sort of information and knowledge level last year so certainly you opted Rich, to continue the conversation to perhaps have the entire meeting be presentations from members, I think the agenda for June permits that it based on what we submitted to the Federal Register, the notice was intended to be a broad opportunity to go back to the things that were most important to the commission from the past six meetings or so. 
RICH>> Okay. Let’s approach the June meeting, and one of the items on the agenda could be a continuation of this discussion with more towns coming to the table how they are approaching the goal or mandate maintaining character within their towns especially within that area of the towns within the boundaries of the seashore. And we referred with Michael in Truro have already gone pretty far in that discussion and  Eastham have settled the issue, but I think we are in different places with each town.  Might be helpful to round out that discussion. Looking at the numbers on this handout that Heather provided, Truro and Wellfleet have the biggest stake in this game with 211 ‑‑ 
LILLI-ANN>> 254. 
RICH single-family resident lots Truro 178 and then Eastham 88 that's the bulk of this issue. 
JEN>> To Larry’s point, there's best practices that can be shared from all the towns I think, Mark and Leslie are on the commission as representatives from the Governor you and Heather in your Chair roles. It feels like an opportunity to raise all boats. 
RICH>> Agreed members? I'm asking for each town that would be really helpful to share information. Let's set that as one of the topics for the June meeting. And with the members like to bring back other topics we have discussed? I'm trying to quickly refresh my memory. 
JEN>> Wildland fire, Water, freshwater, Zoning, state of the park. Climate resiliency. 
RICH>> All of those topics are available for updating and revisiting especially [Inaudible]. It was designed to be a free form agenda you don't have to decide now but let me and Jennifer know. We will start with a continuation of this issue with updates from each town. And then we will also set topics for next year basically. 
JEN>> This September 15th meeting was intended to be more in‑depth State of the Park. And then the setting for moving forward. 
RICH>> Okay. Is that agreeable to everyone? 
GROUP>> Sure. 
RICH  Let me move to the next item on the agenda ‑‑ 
JEN>> We have to move to Rules of Order discussion. 
RICH >> We are going to take a break and then I've got to scratch the item off the agenda. 
[Short break] 
RICH >> Thanks for your comments on the Cape Character.  We have a more practical topic to get through which is Rules of  Order for our Commission meetings in your packet we distributed a one pager with essential draft of Rules of Order and just quickly hopefully you read in detail.  But you can see Attendance certainly is something we have provisions for in person and virtual participation we made provisions for alternates to participate and vote if necessary and we have the Chair and the DFO to determine whether virtual members are allowed. There's a second section on members and alternate roles including that a member can yield some time to an alternate or subject matter expert when applicable.  We also agree that members comments should be restricted to five minutes or if the topic requires it, and it makes sense  it’s the Chair’s discretion to expand that time. We have the third set of protocols which govern public comment.  The Chair needs to manage that. We have limited public comments to three minutes each and that seems to have worked in the past.  We can revisit if necessary.  Written comments may be submitted at any time and will be added to the meeting minutes. And we do not accept anonymous comments, and comments are restricted to matters under the charge of the Commission.  And we don’t go back and forth, we accept them and  let them stand themselves. Also, the Minutes, each member is to have responsibility to review the minutes in advance of the next meeting and if they see corrections they are to be brought forward  to the next meeting, so the floor is open for discussion when it like to do is have us agree whatever final vote will be our rules going from forward. 
LILLI-ANN>> Thank you for the time.  There are several areas I was very concerned about. One is under public comment period, the last bullet, um, second to last bullet, comments are restricted to matters under the charge of the Advisory Commission.  I would like that stricken. I believe this is a public format and forum for the public, and if the public wants to come in and talk about something within the seashore like kite surfing or safety or some other matter like sharks or whatever the public is concerned about, this they have time to come here in a public forum, if this is not the topic the seashore Advisory Commission deals with historically speaking, we have always listened to the Public . I would like that statement stricken. 
The last bullet point under meeting attendance, I would love last bullet to be revised to the Chair and DFO have determined virtual partition is allowable.  When a member is virtual, the member would be the principal representative of the organization.  If the alternate is present physically and the member so chooses, the alternate will be the principal representative for the organization. In other words, every other situation where let's say for example, I will give an example. If I’m an assembly delegate, I logon virtually, I can vote as an assembly delegate.  So, if I'm a member here of the Commission, or whatever we’re called, and I logon remotely, and I am a member I should be able to be the person who is voting and the person speaking unless I so choose to delegate that to the alternate. Those are my two main concerns about these. I want to say I've also a suggestion that, if possible, there should be an agenda item that says unanticipated item or that's an emergency item in the event something that comes up,  if allowable within the structure, that it is somehow included, and I think did make that comment at the last meeting. The other two things that are minor points that I know in the past, we always operated as a consensus body, so the Chair didn’t dictate what we do.  The Chair finds consensus and, if necessary, things come to a vote.  So, under member and alternate roles if the sentence in the first bullet says the Chair has the discretion to allow for alternate comment, then meeting change to alternate comments are allowed time permitting, I think that is still within the character of the way this commission has operated for as long as I have been in the audience and set as this table either as an alternate or member. And I would say last bullet will be restricted to five minutes additional time may will be granted at the discretion of the members instead of the Chair.  And I have these written out for voting for the various voting members if they would like to ask me any questions or if anybody has any objections to what I propose. 
RICH>> Okay. 
LARY>> Have a question and public comment I think it's important it's an opportunity for us to get input and things coming up where it says, public comments are restricted to matters under the charter of the Advisory Commission, I don't totally understand what that means. 
JEN>> I was trying to capture there was the Advisory Commission has a specific charge from the Secretary to advise the Secretary, through the Superintendent on matters related to the development of the seashore including specifically matters of acquisition by condemnation and zoning.  So, my intention was to continue to try to help this group understand the charge of the Secretary was not the charge from Congress in 1961, which was much broader.  This was my attempt to continue to help us stay focused on things within this Advisory Commission's area of focus decided by the Secretary of Interior when she convened this group.  And I hear Lilli-Ann, anyone can talk to the Superintendent anytime and Cheryl is my executive assistant. People can call and make a meeting with me.  The public has ways to talk to us outside of this Advisory Commission and I'm trying to make sure the work we do here links back to the Secretary's charge, so we report our work back to the Secretary, we can demonstrate we are acting on what we were directed to do.  My concern is completely open ended we get sidetracked into lots of other areas outside the scope of the commission that is what I was trying to get to that bullet which may have been imperfect trying to fit it into one sentence.
LARRY>> Let me ask an example. Somebody wants to make a comment relating to hunting in the seashore.  Is that something they shouldn’t make under this rule or only as it relates to the development of the seashore, that they can make.

JEN>> Sure.
RICH>> I think both Lilli-Ann and Larry make a good point. This does sound kind of kind of restrictive.  That's what I'm worried the way it is worded. I think to your point is does sound kind of restrictive and I think the public, this is unique forum for the public to bring up new topics for us to be aware of as well as you.  I would like to give the public free reign in talking about any matters within the Seashore. I think that is ‑‑ 
MIKE >> Let me give you a gentle push back as the moderator, it is up to you to exercise your discretion to what is or isn't important.  What is allowable discussion.  You have to be respectful of everybody's time, the Superintendent and the public.  So, you need a tool to be able to say something like at the discretion of the Chair, topics that are not germane to operation of the seashore maybe tabled or something along those lines You have to have the ability if someone wants to talk about something clearly not germane to the operation of the park, you should be able to say no, that's not the proper time or purpose.
RICH>> What if we use that language.  Using that language comments germane to the Park may be given. 
LILLI-ANN>> May I respectfully say that has never happened in all the time I've sat here and certainly we have all sat here and listened to people online or in front of us they have three‑minute the Chair says your three minutes are up. I don't think that's necessary because we've never had that situation. 
RICH>> We are talking about subject, I we talking about on the subject matter timing? 
LILLI-ANN>> I'm saying nobody comes in here and talks about the color blue for three minutes. They have always talked about something they have a concern about that has relevance to the seashore. 
RICH>> We accept comments that are germane for the operation of Cape Cod National Seashore, and we restrict comments to three minutes with the Chair. 
SHEILA>> We are not going to respond to comments made; we aren’t getting into a discussion what is presented in public comment.  Somebody brings up an interesting topic and everyone wants to get into it.  It's not our job to respond we can listen. If somebody brings up a topic is pretty interesting has nothing to do with us and nobody wants to get into a side conversation, I totally appreciate that, but I think it's clear we don't start commenting on comment and discussing the comments if we choose to say that is an interesting topic we will put that for our own discussion later you can do that. It is restricted in itself. 
RICH>> Exactly. Someone says what about deer hunting, and we take the comment and table it.
LILLI-ANN>> I don't want to be restrictive I don't want the public to feel they are restricted. 
Group talking at once….>> The language climate ‑‑ [audio breaking up]. 
RICH>> Now David will get to his warmup routine before he gets to his comments.
>>>I agree with that. 
DAVID>> I have a comment specifically on that three minutes.  But if I may start at the top with my three comments: the first is the meeting attendance and then these bullets need to have and numbers, so we don't say the fourth line down.  The Chair and DFO have determined virtual participation is allowable.  Members virtual and present the alternate, I like that.  What happens if the member is virtual, and the alternate isn't here? The situation is we need to continue 1, four and Lilli suggested I believe if the member online the member does vote.  That's the situation there it ends. You can have a member present, moving down to 3, two which is the public comment will be limited to three minutes.  I would suggest adding wording with a majority vote of the committee an additional three minutes is allowed, additional time not to exceed three minutes is allowed after that, this is where my routing goes, the Chair is in charge. Let's say I want to hear about the color blue, and you are totally against it, but everyone else wants it, we say okay. And then you realize blue has nothing to do with the Seashore. The person is like we are up to six minutes, and it allows that.   I can think of some situation if an attorney gets in and gets specific down, cutting a person off, even if there is a speech impediment or something similar, I believe we keep going. I would like to see that not that I expected to happen but procedurally. 
RICH>> Procedurally before I find an extra three minutes ‑‑ 
DAVID>> The idea was if you said no the group to say yes. 
>> Do you have a couple of words? 
DAVID>> Public comment will be limited to 3 minutes. No, I don't 
JEN>> Additional time of three-minute extensions by member vote Chair could grant.   
DAVID>> The idea is the Chair and not you if someone says this ‑‑ someone wants to discuss one thing I would say The hunting in the pamphlet says zone the hunting zone we have the zone in our charge. 
RICH>> Right. 
LARRY>> I would leave it the way it is.  Let the Chair make the decision. He thinks we have to vote; he can make the decision.  If not, he can just make the decision. I don't want to put in more time in there where we harangue this person and they are saying something that is important whoever is the Chair can make that decision and if he wants us to decide, he can ask us. I wouldn’t add anything.
RICH>> It’s a little simpler.  Is a little less convoluted elected Chair gives them the discretion to have additional time in the meeting. 
MIKE>> You have an elected Chair, and you give them the discretion to run the meeting.  It's going to turn out fair in the end but it's hard enough to run a meeting without these permutations and rules put the trust in your discretion in the person who has the gavel. That is how effective meetings are run in my opinion. 
LILLI-ANN>> But that’s not the way this meeting has been run, and we are representing our towns and there is various stakeholders at these meetings, and we’ve always run it by consensus, Dave sort of agrees, with me.  If the Chair doesn’t agree or you don’t think it’s germane,  we've always run it by consensus and Dave I think from what he said has sort of agreed with me, if somebody is Chair and you don't agree correctly if I am wrong, if you are the Chair we do not agree with you from a very sound standpoint and you don't think that is germane with whatever the worded is it we want to hear from that person that is why take that and strike it out. The public hasn't abused the privilege in the past let's let them come in do their thing. 
SHEILA>> I hear what you are saying. I think the way it's run in the past because there has been that understanding, and it's not changing it's just making things specific there is three minutes to everyone.  If we find this compelling, they need to finish their point we can say which the Chair usually does looks at us do want to continue? Yes, up to three more minutes you can continue most times I've not seen you do that by yourself anyway. I think it is fine the way it is.   I think we have to give discretion to the Chair because this is the timeframe.  This meeting within the timeframe, and it can move away from the topics we have to cover it also allows public at the end.  for other people who might be sitting there to have their comment heard now we are out of time. 
RICH>> It hasn't been a big issue let's not make it an issue and secondly, some of this language might have to avoid members of the public coming with prepared statements five-page statements they want to read, this  ‑‑ 
JEN>> I started this last time this is my attempt to codify what I saw. I just want there to be consistency between our meetings, but the three minutes came because every one of your Selectboards uses three minutes, so I adapted ‑‑ proposed what seems to be the established practice this community but I am neutral I just want clarity. 
RICH>> We can leave it at this, the Chair can add additional time. We say three minutes, but the Chair can allow extra time if it makes sense. 
SHEILA>> They are able to submit written comments if they want and submit it and to address it once it's distributed, we ask to be put on a topic or what have you. 
LILLI-ANN>> Okay. If you strike the statements that comments are restricted to matters  under the charge of the Advisory Commission, just take that statement out, that other thing becomes sort of moot as well. I'm just saying that and then as far as, I think what I heard is people are fine with my revision that the Chair, when the member is virtual the member will be the principal representation for the organization. 
RICH>> Let's go back to that the member is the primary source. 
LILLI-ANN>> Okay. And as far as I mean statement the Chair retains discretion to allow for alternate comments, time permitting.  Change to alternate comments time permitting, I just think that's ‑‑ I think that works better for the way the meetings have been run. We are open ended. 
JEN>> Just because I can see Cheryl's head is about to explode to keep track of where we are.  Can we take it by chunks?  The meeting attendance what I have heard Dave’s ABC no comments, D the Chair and DFO have determined virtual member and alternate participation is allowable.  Strike the rest. Okay. So that section done. Member alternate role - I don't know I've seen a proposal to change anything. 
MIKE >> Lili has proposed changing the third ‑‑ the fourth sentence. The section currently reads Chair retains the discretion to allow for alternate comments (time permitting)) … She suggested, Alternate comments allowed, time permitting.   I think it says the same thing. 
LILLI-ANN>> Just gives more flexibility.  We’ve always worked that way always ‑‑ 
MIKE>> I don't see distinction and what you propose, but it doesn't matter it seems the same thing to me. 
RICH>> Okay. 
JEN>> So ‑‑ 
SHEILA>> I would leave it. 
RICH>> All right. 
DAVID>> Can we go back to 1D? it says determine virtual member participation is allowable.   Should we say virtual member and alternate? 
LARRY>> Probably. Because that is understood. 
SHEILA>> I agree. That is understood if the member can't be here ‑‑ 
DAVID>> Even if the member is here, you can defer your time. 
RICH>> We are making progress. Keep going. 
JEN>> What I think I heard member and alternate roles Lily proposes a change and that was not accepted.  We are good in Section 2. 
LILLI-ANN>> Wait, wait, wait. You are talking about the first bullet under member and alternate roles. 
MIKE >> Lilli suggested a change in the third bullet under member and alternate roles excising the word Chair at the end of the third bullet and replacing with word members. On 
JEN>>  Thank you.
MIKE>> I don’t agree with that.
LARRY>>I had comments germane ‑‑ that then you guys started talking. 
MIKE>> Currently reads, Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Chair. Lilli suggested changing that to additional time may be granted at the discretion of the members.
LILLI-ANN>>That's correct.  We’ve always worked as a consensus entity.
Multiple speakers
RICH>> Okay, keep going.
JEN>>  Public Comment - The only one I heard a lot of comments on was bullet 3B, public comments will be limited to 3 minutes.   We had a conversation about how that could be extended and then we came back around to ‘leave it.’  Chair can extend it with the concurrence of the group.
DAVID>> Which is already covered in 3A
JEN>> leaving it as 3 minutes period.  I think we said we would strike bullet 1,2,3,4 (counting) bullet 5.  Comments will be restricted to matters under the charge of the Advisory Commission.
RICH>> I thought comments are accepted that are germane to the Cape National Seashore Advisory Commission.
JEN>> Cheryl
CHERYL>> Yes that is what I wrote down comments are accepted that are germane to the CCNS Advisory Commission.
 LILLI-ANN>>May I ask also Is it allowable for an agenda item to be items unanticipated? 
RICH>> It is on there. 
JEN>>  It’s on there.  New Business, it is what we published ‑‑ is already there. It’s what we publish in the Federal Register.  It’s on the standing agenda. Emerging issues identified by members.
LILLI-ANN>> Thank you.
JEN>> Public comment we made an edit to bullet 1, 2, 3, four, number five no other changes under public comment? 
MIKE>> Correct. 
LILLI-ANN>> As far as the meeting minutes, if a member makes, asks per these rules, if we edit them and send them to Cheryl within a week, shouldn't that be sent out to all the members before the meeting? 
MIKE>> That is what it says. 
JEN>> Let me get clarity for our staff. What is published for every meeting is meeting minutes, the transcript which you can see scrolling in real time as we talk and whatever presentations were shared all of those are published together. I am not going to ask Cheryl to take meeting minutes that reflect everything that everybody said.  It's a Herculean task and unnecessary.  We have an actual transcript and she already through and listens to this transcript because it's imperfect.  She listens to make sure Michael's name is next to what Michael said.  There is lots of time put into that. If this body wants to adopt a higher standard for what we are doing in minutes, I’m happy to hear that.  But what I don't want to ask my staff to do triple work when we have a package of material that is provided to all and to the public from every one of these meetings. 
SHEILA>> I agree. And actually, under open meeting regulations it doesn't have to say verbatim what everybody says at a meeting you give the topics covered the general gist of it then there is this transcript and sometimes a video of it as well as all the documents that were with the meeting. I think it is complete enough and I don't think those type of edits have to be incorporated again. 
JEN>> If you want, this is your rules of order, if a member wants to dig in and provide lots of additional information, we can print it as you send it back to us if that is what you direct us to do but I won't ask Cheryl to get try to that level of detail in every single component of the conversation.  She is capturing the buckets not that the finite detailing. Thank you, Sheila, We also post the video this entire video is posted. I feel like we are being very transparent with the public about this and if the meeting minutes are not detailed enough you, then are absolutely going to have to go through and write every little detail Lilli provided I support Cheryl's decision to not just republish it because we did feel it was covered all the other ways. 
RICH>> The member has the ability at the next meeting, when we go to adopt to make for corrections. 
>> We, if you want that we will turn it around exactly. 
LARRY>> If we are going to vote on it, I would like to see something. 
>> [Multiple speakers]  
CHERYL>> I send them out.  Sometimes I get responses, sometimes I do not.  If I do not get a response, I assume that member has no comments.  Some members will say, these are great, I have no comments.  Sometimes 
LARRY>> I'm talking about the minutes, I’m talking about if somebody that wants to change the minutes, make corrections. 
LILLI-ANN>> That is what I did. We all did not receive the edits I sent. 
MIKE>> Can I make a suggestion? 
LILLI-ANN>> I would be very concise ‑‑ 
RICH>> Let me make a distinction before the minutes ‑‑ it's our responsibility to have accurate minutes so if a member sees a mistake and wants to correct specifically the correct minutes that’s fine, but to use the minutes as an additional forum for additional information is out of line. 
MIKE>> I 100% agree with you.  It says all corrections are edited … [Reading] My suggestion would be you could say if a member has significant changes ‑‑ I'm losing my thoughts. We are putting the onus on her to redistribute these if there are correction night don't double date the only correction, she should have to deal with our substantive significant issues like there is a nowhere it should be a yes if somebody wants to add substance, they should add their own additional memo that goes into the record as their additional comments to the meeting and that is not with this says. I would say any corrections or edits should be provided to the executive assistant that are a significant and substantive nature and then we can take them up as a commission, but I don't think we should be revisiting issues that are subjective recollections of what happened. Sorry to ramble but what we have got here is not necessarily what you are describing. 
RICH>> I want to make it simple.  As that it’s not fair  to the executive assistant to try to discern what each member is saying.  That is not fair to her. So, the minutes will be printed and distributed in advance as they always have.  When we come back to the subsequent meeting Item 2 always says approval of the minutes and at that point, I typically make a point of saying either changes, corrections or additions anyone would like to make? Then you can say yes, I said this, or I didn't say that we can amend the minutes at that point and go on. Rather than create more paperwork. And Cheryl having to deal with sorting out what is said and what isn't said so let's keep it simple. 
JEN>> Just looking for clarity. So, we do or don't like these bullets? Is the responsibility of each member and alternate review the meeting minutes in advance of the next meeting. Cheryl sends those out weeks ahead.  All corrections or edits must be provided to the executive assistant – we are striking that.  They are just brought to the meeting.
LILLI-ANN>> If I could just take it back I understand the situation now I understand Cheryl the situation you explained and I will not ‑‑ I really did listen to the video again to understand what you wanted at this time which I took a lot of time to research but also what my comments were especially in relation to these rules,  That is where I made the edits is what I said that is why I put as much as I did it wasn't subjective it was what I said at the meeting and I understand if this is just left the way it is and there are just corrections, and we say somebody says yes and it was no or the just of the intent is incorrect, I'm fine with it staying the way it is now.  Because obviously that didn't work because we have edits, and we voted on the minutes anyway. I printed all that out to give to everybody because I assumed what you suggested was going to happen today, I printed out ‑‑ you didn't review ‑‑ [multiple speakers] if we leave it the way it is now, I think I'm fine. 
RICH>> If we leave this last section meeting minutes the first one seems straight forward.  We ask each of you to review in advance.  If it's corrections or edits is just correcting, you send to the executive assistant. 
JEN>> We will make no judgment calls we will put them in and send them back out a week ahead of the meeting. 
RICH>> That's one option to call them corrections instead of corrections or edits. 
>> Corrections. 
LILLI-ANN>> I meets thing corrections and edits captures ‑‑ 
RICH>> Typically, in my experience during meetings any change to the draft minutes are done at the next meeting in front of everybody. So, if the member says I didn't say that are I remember this as X, this the rest the group says yes, we remember these are our minutes. Change the minutes.  Otherwise, you would have 15 people on the committee sending in individual recollections. 
SHEILA>> That's not what I meant. 
RICH>> So, I’d rather the draft minutes distributed as draft before they become final each member gets a chance and acknowledged before they become final each member gets a chance to say ‑‑ 
LILLI-ANN>> That's what I tried to do.  That didn't work. 
LARRY>> I don't want To “edit”, in just corrections. 
JEN>> We are keeping the last bullet where just taking out edit? 
RICH>> Yes. I’ve heard you Lilli, but you also wanted to correct.
>> Thank you very much. 
>> You are also correct. You also want ‑‑ 
LILLI-ANN>> Thank you for hearing me. Given what the discussion was, I was merely adding as I said it was not arbitrary, I went back and carefully listened to the videotape and added in material that was said. So, no I would not like to make changes. 
RICH>> Thank you for helping us getting that procedure in place. 
RICH>> Back to the agenda. We ready for public comments? 
HEATHER DOYLE, WELLFLEET RESIDENT>> I think a lot of people know me. Thank you I am to have a conversation ‑‑ 2019 became concerned about beach, and we all know why.   safety took dramatic measures thank you very much. Grateful. Call boxes give Hotline access for first responders so waiting for someone to pick up the phone for a multitude of events [off microphone] we had an issue where maybe there was a language barrier they ‑‑ say explicitly where you are. So expedient to respond. Hotline to first responders even if it saves one life one broken ankle, I do not know the specifics and may be too there was abuse of false alarms I'm going to put that out that may be why we had changes related to the call boxes. The call boxes at Nauset Light and Marconi Beach are not today and have not been working.  I know that for a fact from Nauset and from rumor in August at Marconi.  Being super transparent I personally double what worries me now at the direction on the box says to call 911. That might have been okay with the challenges 911 poses, but Eastham now changed 911 dispatch to pick up at Barnstable. That is a change. I had an experience when I hit that 911 or worse and they are sending me to Wellesley ‑‑ would be different ‑‑ I think they were probably copper line, that could be part of the problem. We have lots of resources and opinions. That is basically my comment. I do have photos.  I don't think anybody will contradict.  These are the facts as I know them.  Also, I understand the Stop the Bleed Kits (I had some really interesting feedback) from time to time those are broken into would like to suggest where we have the wire wraps explained to people if you plan a stick a pencil you can snap them ‑‑ I would be willing to create stickers. I've had people [off microphone]. Well, that’s a joke because they are always locked.
RICH>> You may continue. 
HEATHER DOYLE>> Do you want some statistics on sharks He went suggestions to substantiate ‑‑  And now that I’ve asked for something, I will offer to give something.  My organization last year created these safety cards under the approval of  welcome ‑‑ it gives colorful detail what to do before you go et cetera we can print thousands at a time we had a donation last year that allowed us to print 6000. Chamber of Commerce in both towns ran out of them, and we are happy to print more. I am done. Thank you very much. 
RICH>> Thank you. I'm sure wanting to coordinate any distribution of literature. 
HEATHER>> I know it's complicated. 
>> [Multiple speakers] 
RICH>> Thank you for your comment. I see Josh you've been very patient online. You've had your hand up for a long time is he still there? 
JOSH YESTON, WELLFLEET RESIDENT>> I'm here. 
RICH>> Comment is yours. 
JOSH YESTON>> Appreciate the opportunity to speak I really enjoyed listening to the discussion on preserving character around Cape Cod. I hope the commission will keep in their minds when continuing this conversation. Is to leave room for future opportunities of brilliance, home living was built in 1959 and now categorized as a Cape Cod modern home.  It is part of the Cape Cod commission's Cape modern inventory generally protected under a number of various town regulations. When it was built in 59 was called ugly, uncharacteristic of the Cape. I think we all would agree the Cape Cod Modernist movement is a cherished asset we have on the outer Cape but if we institute restricted design regulations, I fear we are going to restrict a new generation as thinkers to introduce something new cherished and loved for the next generation. As we continue to have a discussion around what the zoning restrictions are appropriate, I hope that we is we don't turn into Nantucket as an example that feels pastiche at this point, it feels like a cookie cutter.  We need to leave opportunity for the next generation of brilliance and artistry I think that's a core value of the outer Cape we should continue to celebrate. Thank you. 
RICH>> LOST CONNECTION FOR MEETING [No audio] Hi Josh can you hear us?
JOSH>> Where did I drop? 
MIKE>>  Pastiche
JOSH>>I didn't have much after I summarized my point by asking the commission to consider what the character of the Cape looks like I think we need to hold the value of artistry and self-expression is one of those core values for the Outer Cape.  Allowing expressive forms of architecture is one of those expressions of that core value and I would I appreciate if the commission would keep that in mind. 
RICH>> Certainly. Anybody we appreciate the comment. Anyone else on the virtual attendance list that would like to make a comment? Okay. I've heard none here. I will close that section of the agenda on public comment and turn back to my colleagues at the table about Item Number 5 that I glossed over before, emerging issues you would like to identify now. Understanding we still have a meeting with an opportunity to bring them up on June 16th. I think we have flexibility to deal with anything that comes up in the interim. 
JEN>> I would just offer we have submitted two Federal Register notices.  They generally take 10 weeks or so to appear.  Until the Federal Register notice is published, we cannot have a public meeting, but we submitted both to June 16th and September 15th meeting.  It has to work its way through many layers of the Park Service and Department of Interior, but they are on their way.  We have submitted the Federal Register Notice to be announced seeking nominations for the Chair and Chair Alternate.  You may remember the advisory commission was reestablished the Chair and Chair alternate are both essential government officials I think,  employees so they go to a different path than those of you nominates by the town or county that nomination process will be published in the federal register we have received almost every town's nomination for reappointment or appointing new people we are sending those on their way we are working that.  Members don't generally expire until ‑‑ the beginning of October so we are launching early to make sure we get those approve and reinstated ‑‑ the member since until a new appointment is made. 
LILLI_ANN>> Are you sending them even though they are incomplete? 
JEN>> We are sending them as we get them.  Not all of you are on the same cycle. 
RICH>> Thank you. 
>> Thank you. I think this was a robust meeting. 
SHEILA>> Mr. Chair, I make motion to adjourn. 
RICH>> Thank you. I was counting on you. Is there a second?
MIKE>> Second.
RICH>>. Let's make it official. All those in favor?
AYE
RICH>> Meeting adjourned.