Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Plan Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Salisbury planning board asks for edits to master-plan survey, flags conservation and ADU questions
Summary
The Salisbury Planning Board asked the planner to revise its draft master-plan survey to add open-ended map points, preserve a revised conservation question, consider ADU language tied to state statutes, and include affordability prompts; the board aims to review a final draft in June.
The Salisbury Planning Board on May 18 asked staff and the planner to revise a draft master-plan survey to add more open-ended questions and map-point feedback and to clarify items on conservation, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and housing affordability. Mike Tardiff, who presented the draft, said the Selectboard has already reviewed the survey and that "questions should help the conversation."
Why it matters: The survey will guide the town’s updated master plan and help shape future land-use and conservation priorities. Board members pressed for clearer wording to measure changes in public opinion and to give residents space to identify specific areas for conservation.
Tardiff began the discussion by addressing staff suggestions such as including open-ended questions and map points so respondents can indicate specific locations on town maps. Vice Chair Dobroslav Slavenskoj moved to retain the conservation-fund question with updated language to capture whether opinions have shifted since the prior survey; Slavenskoj also suggested adding information about donated conservation land the town owns. Member David Kelly recommended expanding the conservation item to ask residents which areas should be conserved and flagged that conservation land may carry use restrictions, such as prohibitions on motorized vehicles.
Town Administrator April Rollins recommended removing questions about commercial districting, saying such districting has historically not been favorable in town; she also noted the retail overlay district provides limited opportunities for commercial building. On housing, board members discussed adding ADU questions tied to relevant state statutes and including examples such as senior, workforce and cluster housing. Tardiff suggested adding affordability-focused questions; during that exchange he characterized "workforce housing" in this conversation as households earning roughly $100,000 per year and gave examples including teachers and firemen.
Board members also proposed small design changes to the survey form — for example, an extra comments field under each section and a Class VI road map and definitions for related questions, as recommended by Slavenskoj and Rollins. Tardiff said he will submit an updated survey for the board’s review with the goal of having a final survey out by June.
The meeting opened with a motion by Vice Chair Slavenskoj to approve the May 4 draft minutes; Ken Egounis seconded and the motion passed with none opposed. The board set a tentative next meeting for June 1, 2026, and adjourned at 7:01 p.m.
