Laserfiche WebLink
16 Great Neck RoadNorth <br />wlashyee, -Massachusetts o2649 <br />HP6, the adopted demolition delay bylaw has a "*" so it will most likely be explained. She is <br />happy to come up with better verbs if agreed one is needed. <br />Marge Hecht- Chairwoman Faulkner read an excerpt from the letter submitted by Ms. Hecht. It <br />states that form based code was not a concept supported by this community during the LCP <br />process, it was opposed. The LCP implementation plan provides an overview of the process, <br />that vision did not include form based code. It was not useful. Design wasn't the problem, it <br />was not then and isn't now. No more large development projects! If the Planning Department <br />would find it useful for form based code for future projects they should draft one and present. <br />The main goals of the community were not recognized by the consultants. Ms. Faulkner noted <br />there was a copy of the letter in the packet. <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />Review updated draft implementation table of the Local Comprehensive Plan Update <br />Ms. Waygan commented about the visioning workshops on Built Systems, Community <br />Systems, and Natural Systems. The Town Planner has these workshops consolidated on <br />spreadsheets. The Consultant and Town Planner gave the Board a list and we met in May and <br />redlined it. It was a dump of anything that was left out of the workshops, it got put into this <br />redlined packet. If you said something at one of those workshops it would be in here. <br />Mr. Lehrer commented generally yes, but if one single person contributed an idea, not <br />necessarily a majority, it was not always entered. <br />Ms. Waygan noted when she relined that document she went through all the charts and made <br />sure the comments were in that version. There is the vision, goals, policies, and actions. Every <br />action should be linked to a policy, every policy to a goal, and every goal linked to the overall <br />vision statement. <br />Mr. Lehrer stated the last review was in May, if the chart is scrutinized some red lined items <br />were not in there, they were removed for obvious redundancy purposes. <br />Ms. Waygan noted there is room for development. <br />Mr. Lehrer referenced Ms. Barbee's comment about verbiage. It is difficult to be granular with <br />actions. It's often assessing a concept and analyzing the potential for an action. Ultimately, it's <br />up to staff, boards, committees, and commissions to identify what the appropriate pathway is <br />and the overall desirability or urgency within the Town. The structure of the table needs to be <br />put together in totality then opened to the public before it goes to Town Meeting. The draft <br />before you is not what is being submitted, there is more work to be done. There are no levels <br />of priority assigned to any actions. <br />3 <br />