Loading...
2000-10-12 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Master Plan Steering Committee SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: October 12, 2000 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Joanne Avallon, Richard Dinkin, Wendy Frontiero, Scott Houseman. Bruce Oveson, Wendy Pearl, Donald Preston, Larry Ralph, William Rodenbaugh, John Young, Maureen Troubetaris, John Murray, Virginia McGlynn. John Thomson BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Linda Goodenough, William Delaney, Charles Zarba OTHERS PRESENT: Tina Cassidy, Planning Director and Ken Buckland, The Cecil Group RECORDER: Jeannine Dion Cassidy calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m and introduces Ken Buckland from the Cecil Group. Cassidy states one of the tasks of the evening is the continuance of a discussion from the previous meeting regarding the need to proceed to the next step and solicit public comment on some of the issues the committee has been discussing. There were questiom regarding: · how many meetings would be structured, · how many meetings there would be, · subject matters to be discussed at the meetings, · facilitator(s) Cassidy states she met with three members of this committee a few weeks ago. The subcommittee felt the meetings held in 1998 for the Goals and Objectives phase were good and served their purpose, however, there was a consensus of those who expressed an opinion, that maybe that same kind of style would not work well this time. Cassidy provides an outline for committee members to review and recommends eliciting specific responses from people to start narrowing down the field of possibilities into a manageable group. Cassidy lists examples of topics for the workshops: · proposed zoning changes · changes to the Planning Board's regulations for subdivisions, · city-wide ordinances or policies that the city might want to have with respect to the Capital Expenditure Plan. Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Minutes Octaber 12, 2000 Page 2 Cassidy states the committee's discussion tonight should focus on the following: · The format of the workshops. Does the committee agree with the idea of holding a series of four two-hour meetings focused with specific subjects for each of the meetings? · Does the handout provide a good infornmtion base and what details or options should be added? · Who will facilitate the meetings, and how will they be structured? Cassidy opens the meeting up for discussion. Rodenbaugh asks Cassidy what she would like to have in hand after the meetings. Cassidy responds thnt she would like to have a better sense of topics and narrow down the options that might be available. For example: the city should perhaps pursue a conservation subdivision design ordinance because cluster subdivisions currently don't work. Avallon recommends providing a workbook for the workshop outlining the method of change and the options because people need to know how to "get from A to B." Dinkin states the committee needs to be clear that the Master Plan process has a set of end products. The Master Plan is a small policy statement which is good only so long as an administration buys into the policies it recommends. What gives "legs" to the policy are the changes that are enshrined in the zoning ordinance and the changes that are enshrined in the regulations that govern the various boards and commissions. The workshops get people accustomed to being involved in City governmnet activities so that when the public hearings occur a workbook document that "This is Step 1 and there is a set of processes down the road that is going to take another "x" number of months to complete...but we really want to keep you interested and we want you to be involved in the whole set of processes." Avallon suggests that to make the public forums valuable, the committlee must provide concrete information to the people as part of the discussion. Dinkin states there are two results of providing people with information. It provides a framework for expression and allows people to express themselves. The flip side of providing people with information is that it does the opposite - it becomes limiting. If you provide people with too many options in too much detail, the meeting becomes a discussion of the things the commlttee already has discussed and not the things the committee has not yet explored. You need to give people enough information so they understand the context of the discussion but not so much that you are forcing them to discuss the things you want to discuss. Dinkin suggests providing a digest of the relevant portions of the zoning ordinance or municipal regulations that affect the topic that is being discussed and no more than one or two sentences about some of the topics that the committee has already discussed prefaced with the phrase "these are SOME of the topics around these major issues... We want to hear more about the topics and whatever else you think Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Minutes October 12, 2000 Page 3 is related to them." Ralph recommends a set of overarching comments on what the results of the whole process will be. He states people will need to know the timeline for completion of the remnining steps of the master plan and how the information gathered in the workshops will be assimilated into the Committee's efforts. He recommends establishing a goal of having the boards and commissions work together in some cohesive manner. Cassidy states some people will come to the meeting to learn about a specific topic and expresses concern about the discussions going off on tangents about the specifics of a particular issue. Dinkin states that is a meeting management issue and you need to be very clear that the conversation is not about specific proposals that may or may not be in front of a board currently. The conversation has to be focused globally to talk about the general issues. Houseman asks Buckland about the dichotomy of people who attend the workshops to learn and listen and those who follow things very closely and want to talk about more concrete implementation strategies. How do you structure the meeting so that you don't preclude people from thinking outside of the box and raising issues that the committee has not thought of yet. Buckland responds that he does not think there is a dichotomy and there is a way to mesh the two together. The committee is presenting alternatives because it has developed issues, goals and objectives. The alternatives become the way the goals and objectives are implemented. Three or four alternatives are brought forward for each issue for discussion. Buckland recommends taking an alternative (i.e. open space acquisition) and breaking down the group into smaller groups to discuss that particular issue. Houseman states it is important to stay focused at the workshops, however, the committee should make it clear that we are open to listening to new ideas. Dinkin states if you are soliciting public input, the solicitation has to be real. Buckland recommends that the consultants put together the workbook or summary and present it to the public. A committee member(s) will become the facilitator of the workshops and act as an intermediary between the public and the consultants that provided the information. Thomson states he likes Buckland's recommendation and it makes sense that the alternatives are presented to the public and the consultants that provided the information. Avallon states the committee members could be useful mediators between the consultant and the public. Rodenbaugh recommends having a member of the Master Plan Steering Committee run the meeting and stresses the need for creating a focus for the meetings. Master Plan Steeting Committee Meeting Minutes October 12, 2000 Page 4 There is discussion regarding conducting four workshops. Dinkin recommends a fifth meeting which would be a summary meeting. Pearl states asking the public the "right questions" will shape the answers. Oveson states the workshops will deal with four topics, which are very tightly interwoven with each other. He asks how you weave them together. Cassidy responds that if there was some real conflicting recommendation that came out of the groups, the committee could consider another forum. Young states the biggest issue from the previous consulting group's workshop was schools. He asks how the Master Plan can be meaningful if it is neglectingo the number 1 topic of the citizens. Buckland responds that the topic of schools can be discussed under the topics of infrastructure, residential and population demographics. Avallon agrees that the public will want to discuss the issue of schools and the committee should prepare for that. Buckland responds that the issue of schools should be allowed as part of the discussion but it does not necessarily mean that it has to be presented as a component of each topic. Dinkin states he thinks the issue of schools will be raised and the workshops should limit the discussion on schools to what is relevant. Young asks what role the Master Plan has on the schools. Cassidy repsonds in recognizing that you need to fund them and there is a built-in cost that escalates every year. It is a commitment that you have to make and how will you get the money to get the school system in the physical condition you want. Oveson states if the community is treated like their opinions are important and you really want them to know how things work, you will get a positive response. If people understand how issues are tied together, that starts to generate conversation. Buckland asks if members agree to the five workshops. Members agree. Pearl recommends that the advertising present the meetings as a series of meetings and they should be segmented so people know the topic of each meeting. Young recommends using the newspapers to get the word out and let people know that there is important information available to them so they can start informing themselves before the workshops take place. The committee chose transportation and infrastructure to be the topics for discussion at the first workshop. Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Minutes October 12, 2000 Page 5 Buckland describes the process. It starts with advertising, which advises people that the committee is looking for their input on transportation and infrastructure. The meeting begins with the consultant's presentation of the alternatives and then facilitation of the meeting. There is discussion regarding the options for facilitation - breaking down into smaller groups versus keeping the discussion in a large group, who will facilitate the discussions, etc. Buckland states if the meeting is one big group meeting, there will need to be a handout for people to submit at the end of the meeting, with their ideas and issues. Cassidy responds that the workbook can have a tear-off sheet at the end of the workbook which would enable people to provide comments in writing at the meeting or afterward. Buckbmd states 15 - 20 facilitators could handle the discussions. He breaks down the meeting as follows: · Introduction - 20 - 25 minutes · Alternatives- 15 minutes · Discussion = 45 minutes (broad group discussion) = 40 minutes (small group discussion) · Large group reconvenes for discussion - 20 - 30 mimites Dinkin expresses concern that this meeting structure does not allot enough time to allow substantive discussion. Buckinud states he will provide a draft workbook regarding transportation and infrastructure prior to the next Master Plan Steering Committee meeting. If committee members have comments, they should provide them to Cassidy in a timely manner, so she may provide them to Buckland. He will then incorporate the comments in the workbook prior to the next steering committee meeting. The committee members agree to schedule the first Public Forum on November 16, 2000 from 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Young suggests reaching the two local newspapers to get word out about the web site so it can be used a vehicle to distribute information. The next meeting Master Plan Steering Committee is scheduled for November 9, 2000. Cassidy asks if there is any other business for the committee to discuss. There being none, the meeting is adjourned at 9:00 p.m.