Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board debates master plan update and how to respond to proposed state zoning bills
Summary
Board members discussed updating the town master plan, options for a master-plan committee, and concerns about pending state legislation that could alter local zoning and minimum-lot requirements.
Brookfield — The planning board spent substantial time on April 14 discussing options for updating Brookfield's master plan and how the town should respond to several state-level bills that board members said could affect local zoning authority.
Members reviewed the composition required for a formal master-plan committee: one selectman appointed by the chair of the board of selectmen, two planning board members, and four public members serving one-year terms. Some members preferred using the planning board itself to draft updates and then publish sections and hold public hearings, rather than forming a full committee, to speed the process. Members suggested assigning chapters to volunteers, using existing chapter drafts and SRPC resources to avoid duplicating past work, and preparing an implementation section focused on action items.
The board also discussed recent and potential state legislation that several members said aims to address housing shortages by changing zoning rules, including proposals cited in the meeting to reduce minimum lot sizes (examples discussed: moving from 2 or 5 acres to 1 acre) and to expand accessory dwelling unit (ADU) allowances. Members expressed concern about potential state intervention in local zoning, the administrative and infrastructure burdens of denser development, and the need to have a current master plan to support town positions when testifying. The New Hampshire Municipal Association and other participants were reported as opposing several of the bills discussed; members also discussed statutory constraints on the state imposing unfunded mandates on municipalities.
Several board members recommended moving ahead this year to revise the master plan incrementally, using existing chapter drafts and inviting subject-matter input from committees such as conservation, road maintenance and historic preservation. Board members asked staff to circulate available draft sections and prior survey results to reduce duplication of effort and to set an achievable schedule for finalizing an updated master plan.
