Georgetown Planning Board
Wednesday March 13, 2024
Clickable Transcript Printable Transcript Agenda
The order of items in transcripts appear in the chronological order in which they were taken up. Some Agenda items may have been skipped.
Minutes:
During the meeting, it was disclosed that the minutes for November 8, 2023, and February 28 were not accessible as expected. The November 8th document is located on the town hall's shared drive, but neither the speaker nor John Cashell could access it remotely. Efforts are underway to resolve this issue, with the anticipation that IT and the sound administrator will provide assistance. Despite John Cashell beginning employment with Wilbert, he is attempting to compile the February 28th minutes, and the speaker plans to assist in assembling what is needed for that record.
Show more... Show less
Vouchers: MVPC – Annual Dues
The board addressed the matter of annual dues, specifically an invoice received from the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission for the fiscal year 2024 assessment and a separate bill for a Zoom charge for February 2024. Joanne Laut, a Planning Board member, motioned to pay the bills totaling $3,257.40, which included two different payments: $3,231.41 for the FY24 assessment to the NVPC and $25.99 for the Zoom charge. The motion was seconded by Bruce Reed and, upon a roll call vote, was unanimously passed 5-0, with all present board members voting in favor of the motion.
Show more... Show less
Planning Office: 1. MVPC Update on the proposed MBTA
The conversation focused on the proposed MBTA 3A non-age restricted multifamily housing, Overlay District, and zoning bylaw amendments in the Merrimack Valley area. The speaker mentioned having spoken to Ian Burns from the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission and planning to hold a public hearing next month with public notices already sent to newspapers. Discussion also touched upon North Reading's approach to similar zoning issues, with members considering whether to table their own warrant article until more information became available on how other communities are responding. The necessity of holding a public hearing as per the zoning act was emphasized, along with the planning board's responsibility to report on the amendments at a town meeting. Doubts were raised about the potential attendance and interest from the community in the upcoming public hearing, and concerns were voiced about the state's lack of response regarding the number of units required to change. Suggestions were made to possibly press the state for answers and consider tabling the discussion until more information was provided. The group also touched upon the issue of perceived discrimination against MBTA communities in terms of eligibility for state grants.
Show more... Show less
Planning Office: 2. Update on the hiring process for the Administrative Assistant and the Planner Position
Lacortiglia discussed updates on the hiring process for the administrative assistant and planner position, mentioning that one resume had been received via the Mass Planners listserv. Although unable to discuss further details with the town administrator due to an informal meeting, it was noted that there might be a possibility of hiring a planner before an assistant. Queries about the distribution of resumes and the reposting of the job description were raised, with Lacortiglia confirming the job had indeed been reposted as a new, distinct role. Laut emphasized the significant change in the job's nature, while Comiskey informed the board that the position was also advertised on the MACC website. Lacortiglia appreciated the strategy of creating a hybrid position that aligns with the interconnected nature of planning projects and administrative processes.
Show more... Show less
Planning Office: 3. Discussion of invoice Single signer threshold
The public hearing deliberated on the single signer process for approving and paying bills, a method adopted due to the pandemic affecting regular meetings. The speaker discussed their authorization to sign off on bills before board approval, pursuant to a law, addressing concerns raised by an accountant, Mary, especially about recurring charges such as the Zoom subscription. The discussion sought to establish a comfortable threshold for the amount the speaker could approve without prior board consent. The consensus hovered around setting a $1,000 limit for such transactions, with amounts exceeding this requiring a board vote. Members expressed trust in the speaker's discretion within this framework, noting the long-standing authorization and the speaker's integrity concerning legal compliance and transparency.
Show more... Show less
Member or Public Concern:
During the public hearing, George Comiskey identified unauthorized activities at 10 Lizzie’s, noticing a bobcat near shore rock pond and the absence of necessary erosion control measures. This prompted a discussion on the importance of adhering to approved plans that include erosion control to protect the environment, specifically an impaired pond. Comiskey highlighted the vulnerability caused by the lack of a planner, which affects the oversight on such matters. The board acknowledged the need for vigilance in monitoring the site and ensuring compliance with environmental protection requirements. Additionally, administrative matters regarding the signing of mylars for a special permit were discussed, emphasizing the need for multiple signatures to meet legal requirements. The conversation underscored the board's collective responsibility in the absence of a designated planner and the importance of following established procedures to prevent environmental damage.
Show more... Show less