 |
Planning Board Minutes: January 26, 2006
Members present: Maggie Lawrence presiding, Brian Punting, Janet Cathcart, Cindy Hoogs
The minutes from January 12 were amended and approved.
Maggie announced that there will be two open seats for the Planning Board at the upcoming election.
She also noted that the warrant closes between March 1 and April 1, and that additional research is needed on the number of parcels that would be affected by ADU bylaws. A public meeting will be scheduled after the proposals are published.
Robert Hoogs, instrumental in developing the Master Plan for Great Barrington, was present to aid the Board in identifying what remains to be done in order to complete the Master Plan for Monterey. He received the preliminary planning work undertaken in 2003. He said that the goals should be defined and clarified. For example, the people of Monterey wish to retain the rural quality of their town are also are open to agricultural development. The Master Plan, therefore, must show how these goals might be implemented. He also advised that demographic information be updated, and that other elements necessary for the report such as goals and policies, land use, housing, economics, cultural development, be organized in distinct categories. Hoogs felt that implementation was key in a well-drawn plan. He stressed
that “goals must be tied to action.” The clarity of the plan also impinges on the ability to obtain grants and services.
In light of Hoogs’s input, the Board will cull the existing document; jettison what can’t be implemented; organize what is pertinent, such as the various elements mentioned above; add missing elements; envision implementation of services and facilities, i.e. walkways to the beach, use of open space, cluster developments, land trusts; and research of the availability of federal funds. An area for the Planning Board’s investigation might include the promotion of “private-public partnership” in institutions such as Gould Farm, an important resource in the community. Another focus would be to look at what current bylaws don’t allow and what changes might be made. Members agreed a good plan would not be limited to zoning laws, but would consider how to prioritize, implement,
assign responsibility, and track the progress of Monterey’s future.
The Board expressed concern that they foster and not hinder growth which cannot be stopped but can be used in positive ways and for a variety of purposes. Although the final draft of the Master Plan is not subject to a vote of approval by the Select Board or the community, it is the intent of the Board to be inclusive, hearing the needs of various interest groups. The final Master Plan need not have “all the answers,” but should serve as a roadmap for town officials and residents to realize their vision for the growth and future of the town.
Respectfully submitted,
Esther Heffernan
| |
