Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMPIC Minutes 2-1-2021 MINUTES: MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE: February 1, 2021 In Attendance (via Google Meet and telephone): Members Kelly Cormier (Chair), Stan Limpert (Vice- Chair),Chris Nobile, Meredith Barnes-Cook,Sean McDonough,Jon Strauss, Hollie Williams,and Jay Dowd, and George Koehler Absent: None. Staff: Andrew Shapiro (Director of Community and Economic Development), Jean Enright (Planning Director), and Dan Beckley(Staff Planner) Immediately prior to calling the meeting to order at 6:00pm, Kelly Cormier read aloud the following statement: Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §18, and the Governor's March 15, 2020 Order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the Master Plan Implementation Committee will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and/or parties with a right and/or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the Town's website, at .n o r-- h a n d over.m.a..ggy. For this meeting, members of the public who wish to watch the meeting may do so on their televisions by tuning to Comcast Channel 99 or Verizon Channel 28 or online at .n rth n rc m. r....... . No in- person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time, via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the Town of North Andover website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. If the public would like to participate in public hearings please email your . question comment prior to or during the meeting to a.. ..............p....!r...........................D...........urn.. ............. .................................... ..!�. °a...............®............................ The question/comment will be read during the proceedings and responded to accordingly. Public Comment Ms. Cormier asked Andrew Shapiro if he had received any comments from the public. Mr. Shapiro said that no comments had been submitted as of the start of the meeting. Approval of minutes from the January 4.2021 meeting Ms. Cormier offered an amendment to the minutes relative tp the wording under the section titled "Report out on element groups"strategy prioritization discussions",with a request to replace the wording "strategy is essentially complete" to "strategy is complete". Stan Limpert moved to accept the minutes with said amendment., and Chris Nobile seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 9- 0. Discussion regarding status of strategies discussions Mr. Limpert spoke regarding a recent meeting that was held with NAPD and NAFD and attended by himself, Meredith Barnes-Cook, Andrew Shapiro, Jean Enright and Daniel Beckley regarding substance abuse and mental health support services in Town. Mr. Limpert How do we as a committee do something to help with strategies. Mr. Limpert mentioned that It is unclear who would work to implement the strategies. What is the role of the MPIC in this. NAPD/NAFD are identified as the stakeholders, but they are not exactly the ones charged with implementation. Hollie Williams mentioned Rick Gorman - Social Service Coordinator for the Youth Center. Mr. Limpert replied he and Ms. Barnes-Cook have worked with �7_�_.' Deanna Lima, NA Community Support Coordinator and asked what should happen next.s PiSEPGeorge Koehler asked if PD/FD know about the youth coordinator. Mr. Limpert said yes,that the strategy is very general regarding the objective and the PD/FD are not responsible for enacting policy. Ms.Wiiliams asked who put the strategy there in the Master Plan. Ms. Enright said it was the consultants, who received feedback from stakeholder meetings with town staff and the public. Ms. Enright reiterated that the task of the MPIC is to identify strategies to be prioritized, but not necessarily the mechanisms to implement them. Mr.Shapiro added that ultimately it is the Select Board and the Planning Board who will take action regarding Master Plan strategies. Some of these are straightforward and narrowly focused (eg. Complete Streets), but others are broad-based and require lots of discussion and input. Progress is being made, especially with Ms. Lima in her relatively new role. Mr. Nobile added that the MPIC is not the body responsible to implement these strategies but rather to advise on prioritization of strategies. Mr. Limpert asked Mr. Nobile if we should be reporting this to the Select Board, to which Mr. Nobile answered in the affirmative. Mr. Limpert voiced a concern about inundating the Select Board with priorities,to which Mr. Nobile mentioned that the job of the MPIC its to focus on one or two strategies per category and report those to the Select Board on a quarterly basis, so the number of strategies would be somewhat manageable. Mr. Shapiro reiterated that the focus of the quarterly reports is to identify those prioritized master plan strategies that have yet to be addressed and should be focused on at the moment. Mr. Limpert voiced a concern that the quarterly reports will be issued, but ultimately not acted upon. Ms. Cormier replied that the reports are the representation of the MPIC's deliberation and recommendation and that ultimately is the charge the committee is tasked with. Mr. Nobile mentioned that the Select Board should be held accountable for following though on the MPIC's recommendations. Mr. Shapiro added that the Select Board sets goals on an annual basis and that they may take the MPIC's recommendations into consideration when setting their agenda moving forward.There a was a discussion regarding the need for feedback to the MPIC regarding implementation of recommendations and the MPIC's operation in general to which Mr. Nobile mentioned that some items are not subject to certain metrics but a conversation should be maintained to discuss the ongoing recommendations. Ms. Cormier then asked if there was any additional discussion regarding meetings held by MPIC subcommittee members with stakeholders. Sean McDonough (Economic Development Subcommittee) replied that he had been approached by a representative of Trinity Financial regarding the redevelopment of Royal Crest Estates regarding a potential presentation to the MPIC. Mr. McDonough asked if this would be something worthwhile to the group. Ms. Cormier replied that she and Mr. Limpert had discussed the same issue and debated the benefit of doing so. She asked Mr. Shapiro or Ms. Enright as to the appropriateness of having a dedicated presentation to the MPIC, to which Mr. McDonough replied that he discussed with with Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Shapiro responded that the Town has been encouraging Trinity to conduct outreach to the community regarding this project and this is in keeping with that. However, because the project is being presented to the official channels (Select Board, Planning Board, ConComm), there's a question if it is something that should be brought before the MPIC and what would be accomplished by doing so. Ms. Enright echoed similar concerns. Ms. Enright continued that the Town encouraged Trinity to reach out to residents and certain boards (Affordable Housing Trust, Commission on Disabilities). Ms. Williams mentioned that the proposed project encompasses many of the categories and tenets included in the Master Plan that the MPIC should be in the loop to some degree and further cited that in her experience on several boards and committees in Town that many citizens are simply unaware of the project at all. She suggested we grant Trinity a forum. Mr. Limpert suggested Trinity give a presentation based on where the project fits in for each category/goal of the Master Plan for purely informational purposes, given that the MPIC has no actual say in the direction of the project. In addition, Mr. Limpert suggested it was best to get the information first-hand, so as best to disseminate it to the public should need be. Mr.Shapiro asked what the end result of a presentation to the MPIC would be. He asked if the MPIC would issue a report regarding how the project meets the goals of the Master Plan or would the MPIC issue a report for suggestions on how the project could be more congruent with the Master Plan. He further asked as to what would be the net effect of this or would it simply be an information session. Mr. Limpert suggested a simple information session. Mr. Koehler raised the idea of a presentation where Trinity would demonstrate how the proposed project meets the goals of the Master Plan and that having more people "in the know" about this project would be a good thing in general. Mr. Limpert asked if it made sense to denote those prioritized strategies that may be affected further by the Royal Crest redevelopment project in the MPIC quarterly reports to the Select Board. Mr. Nobile offered that this presents an opportunity to the MPIC to actually apply what we've discussed regarding priorities and that we should look at it more than just an informational session. Jon Strauss mentioned that while the MPIC does not have a say in the project itself,that a presentation would give firsthand information to the members of an organized Town body with the potential to spread factual information to others in Town and help dispel misinformation and falsehoods that inevitably pop up over time. Ms.Cormier added that she saw value in having the actual information presented in the lens of the Master Plan. Ms. Barnes- Cook mentioned that she saw value in an informational session as well,given that she is an actual abutter to the proposed project. Mr. McDonough cautioned that any presentation should have some constraints in order to focus on only that information as it pertains to the goals and elements of the Master Plan. Ms. Cormier and Ms. Barnes-Cook agreed with these parameters. Ms. Cormier asked Mr. Shapiro and Ms. Enright if there were any concerns relative to the need for any members to recuse themselves from the conversation. Ms. Enright responded that it would be best to consult with Town Counsel first and will let the MPIC know once she has an answer. Ms. Cormier asked if she should reach out to Trinity on behalf of the MPIC. Ms. Enright and Mr. Shapiro suggested Ms. Cormier contact Mike Lozano, the Project Manager, as he has been the primary contact with the Planning board. Ms. Cormier responded that she would reach out and note that it would be a completely voluntary exercise, but that it would be structured around the Master Plan elements. Mr. McDonough mentioned that he had been initially contacted by Gregory Lane of Trinity Financial. Ms. Enright mentioned that Mr. Lane was affiliated with NextGen Strategies, not Trinity. Ms. Cormier noted that she would reach out and inquire about interest in a meeting. Report out on element groups' strategy prioritization highlights Ms. Cormier brought up the review and approval of the MPIC's Quarterly Report. Mr. Limpert credited Mr. Shapiro and offered his thanks for his diligence in drafting up the meeting minutes from the last meeting. Ms. Cormier solicited comments regarding the language used for the MPIC's recommendation regarding the Town's adoption of a Complete Streets policy. Mr. Shapiro noted the language was taken directly from the Master Plan itself and have no objections. Mr. James Dowd asked if it would be appropriate to include detailed language as to what a complete street is. Ms. Cormier asked about the possibility of including a link to a description in the report. Ms. Strauss responded that that language that was used was taken nearly verbatim from MassDOT's Complete Street Program website and that the choice of wording was purposely generic insofar that the responsible body(the Select Board)for enacting a complete streets policy would spell out the specific details as part of said program. Mr. Shapiro noted that the Select Board would rely on Town staff and resources for input relative to formulating a complete streets policy. There is a draft policy, but it needs further refinement before it can be enacted upon. Mr. Nobile noted that this process is similar to the one the Town went through for the Green Communities grant. Mr. Koehler asked if a link to MassDOT's Complete Streets funding guidance should be included with the recommendation in the Quarterly Report. Mr. Shapiro replied in the affirmative. Review and approval of quarterly report Ms. Enright inquired about the language in the proposed quarterly report relative to "implement an activity reporting approach". Mr. Limpert replied that in his conversations with Ms. Cormier, they spoke about the need to keep track of discussions regarding Master Plan strategies, perhaps via annotations in the spreadsheet currently being used by the MPIC. Ms. Cormier asked if anyone from the MPIC transportation subcommittee could be present for when the Quarterly Report would be presented to the Select Board. Mr. Dowd made a motion to accept the report, as amended. Ms. Willams seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0. New Business Mr. Limpert discussed the potential need for the MPIC,during review of Master Plan strategies,to identify items and/or funding that the Select Board (eg: land use, housing) should include in their annual fiscal planning. Mr. Nobile asked about the opportunity for the MPIC quarterly report scheduled to be issued prior to Town Meeting as a means of summarizing the committee's prior activities. Mr. Koehler added the MPIC could issue a short report,via letter or a handout, at Town Meeting on an annual basis which could be used to assess year over year progress. Mr. Nobile stressed the need for connectivity between the MPIC and the Town's citizens. Ms. Cormier added that this is ultimately a 20 year process, so it is not necessarily a measure of short term progress. Further, she added that the MPIC is able to make recommendations, including financial ones, so we need to consider the lead time for our reporting and recommendations with regard to budgeting. Mr. Dowd mentioned he thought the Select Board should be ones to present the MPIC's report to Town Meeting. Mr. Limpert countered that it might be best that the Planning Board present the report as they are responsible for the Master Plan. Ms. Enright mentioned that both Boards are responsible for adoption of the Master Plan. Mr. Dowd concluded that either of the boards (Select or Planning) should be the ones to present the MPIC report, rather than the MPIC itself. Mr. Shapiro then noted that the next MPIC meeting is scheduled for March 1., 2021 at 5:00 pm. No objections to this date and time were made. Mr. Limpert then asked Mr. Shapiro if any public comments had been received during the meeting. Mr. Shapiro noted that none had been received. Adjournment Motion: Mr. Limpert made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Nobile. Motion approved by a vote of 9-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:41pm.