Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Process Timeline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee sets March posting, April hearing as target dates for draft comp plan
Summary
The committee agreed on a near‑term schedule: a March 1 posting of a draft plan (30‑day public notice), an April public hearing, and a goal to finalize plan language for printing by May so absentee ballots and warrant timelines for town meeting are met; members noted the schedule is aggressive and may be extended if needed.
Committee members reviewed a proposed schedule for completing and posting the draft comprehensive plan and agreed to aim for a March 1 public posting of the draft, followed by a 30‑day public notice period and an April public hearing.
Key dates and mechanics: members understood that (a) posting the draft on March 1 starts a 30‑day notification window required before a formal public hearing, (b) changes after the April public hearing may require additional public notice but that smaller edits can be handled with a shorter notice period, and (c) the town needs final materials in time for absentee ballot and warrant printing schedules ahead of town meeting (committee cited May 11 as a typical absentee ballot start date). The group discussed a midpoint “gut check” on Feb. 18 to assess readiness and again after the April hearing to decide whether to proceed to printing or to delay final adoption to November.
Why it matters: the schedule drives when draft chapters must be completed and circulated to the select board and the public. Committee members stressed the need to avoid rushing substantive edits but also recognized town procedural deadlines tied to absentee ballots and warrant schedules.
Next steps: staff will continue circulating chapter drafts to the select board for preliminary review. The committee agreed to reconvene for focused work sessions in late February and on Feb. 28 (3–5 p.m.) to review select‑board feedback prior to the March posting.
Ending: committee members said they would proceed with the aggressive schedule if drafts and select‑board reviews proceed smoothly, but they reserved the right to delay the final adoption process if significant public input requires more time.
