Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board weighs Historical Commission role in proposed naming policy
Summary
The Select Board reviewed proposed language for a town naming policy and debated a new paragraph requiring Historical Commission review when applications propose naming or renaming a 'historical asset' under MGL c.40 §8D. Members discussed whether review should be advisory or require a recommendation, how to define 'historical asset,' and whether the commission should comment on all naming applications.
Staff presented a revised naming policy that includes input from the Historical Commission. The revised paragraph proposed that if an application proposes to name or rename a historical asset as designated in Massachusetts General Law chapter 40, section 8D, the application must be reviewed by the Historical Commission.
Board members debated the scope and wording. Concerns included: whether the commission's review should produce a recommendation or only commentary, how to identify the set of properties that would trigger review (a possible addendum/list of assets), and whether the Historical Commission should provide input on every naming application regarding the historical significance of the proposed name rather than only when the asset itself is designated historic.
Several members favored simpler language that requires the Historical Commission be given the opportunity to comment and to provide a recommendation on historical significance; others cautioned against giving the commission de facto veto authority. The board agreed to incorporate the amended language discussed at the meeting and to bring the policy back for final action at the June 10 meeting to allow absent members to weigh in.
The board noted that the policy applies only to currently unnamed town-owned property (not renaming of existing named assets), and directed staff to revise the draft as discussed.
