Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Masterplan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses housing element/fair-share timeline, reexamination and role in capital planning
Summary
The planner and board discussed timelines and steps for the housing element and fair-share plan under new state procedures, a proposed reexamination of the master plan, and whether the Planning Board should play a formal role reviewing the municipal capital improvement plan.
The Planning Board heard an extended briefing from board planner Joe Burgess on the housing element and fair-share planning process under the state—s new procedure and on how the board should approach a reexamination of the master plan and the capital improvement program.
Housing element and fair-share process: Burgess said the governing body has filed a binding resolution with the state program to start the new process and described the steps that follow: an objection period in February, program review in March, and a schedule that requires municipalities to adopt and file an adopted housing element and implementation ordinances in the months that follow. He said his office will prepare a draft housing element for review by the full board in late April (with May as a likely alternative if additional time is needed) and that governing-body endorsement and state filing must follow the municipal adoption timeline set by the statute. Burgess warned that failing to meet statutorily required filing deadlines could affect municipal immunities under the housing law.
Master plan reexamination: Burgess recommended the board perform a focused reexamination report (a shorter —reexamination— rather than a full comprehensive master plan), noting the last reexamination was completed in 2016 and a thin reexamination would preserve resources while keeping the municipality compliant with the —at least once every 10 years— expectation. He said a modest, short reexamination could be timed to follow or run concurrently with the housing element work, and that a full master plan update would be a larger, lengthier undertaking requiring broader public engagement and additional budget.
Capital improvement program (CIP) role: Board members then discussed whether the planning board should have a formal role reviewing or advising on the municipality—s multi-year capital improvement plan. Several members said the planning board—s land-use and engineering expertise could add value to prioritizing projects and to coordinating grants and design work; counsel and the planner said the board could perform that review if the governing body referred the CIP to the board for comment. The chair asked staff to prepare a memo that would explain what statutory authority the planning board would have and outline possible models for a referral process.
Why it matters: The housing element/fair-share plan and master-plan work determine local zoning policy, future land-use and the ordinances that will implement them; the CIP discussion concerns whether planning review can help the city better coordinate large projects, grant applications and design outcomes.
Ending: The planner and staff will produce timelines and draft documents (housing element draft, reexamination engagement letter and a memo on CIP review options) for upcoming meetings so the full board and the governing body can consider next steps and schedules.
