Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board criticizes phase-one master plan deliverable and weighs alternatives for phase two
Summary
A planning board subcommittee presented a detailed critique of the MAPC phase-one draft on June 24, citing formatting errors, stale data and mismatches with public input; the board agreed members need time to review the findings and tasked staff to research procurement, funding and next steps for phase two.
Members of the planning board's master plan subcommittee reported a line-by-line companion document on June 24 that flagged factual errors, inconsistent voice, missing citations and sections based on old source data in the phase-one deliverable produced for Hull by MAPC.
Subcommittee members said they found multiple categories of problems: typographical and figure-numbering errors, broken footnote links, and substantive weaknesses where several underlying data points were dated (for example, some land-use inputs referred to 2004). "A lot of the underlying assumptions were were not correct," said Abby Cleman, noting the age of some sources. The subcommittee asked whether MAPC would correct obvious errors and requested time for the full board to review the subcommittee's detailed markup.
Board members emphasized they want to see accurate supporting documentation in the record. The chair and staff described procurement options for phase two: MAPC can be retained directly under state contract mechanisms, or the town could run a request-for-qualifications (RFQ) process to seek alternative consultants. Members asked staff to clarify potential funding routes, including whether Community Preservation Act funds or grants could be applied and to confirm what procurement steps the town manager would require.
The board agreed to give members time to digest the subcommittee document before deciding next steps. Abby, Chandelle and Cindy Borges were thanked for their work compiling the review. Staff was asked to pull procurement and funding information and to circulate the subcommittee document to the full board for detailed review ahead of the next meeting.
