WASHINGTON PLANNING BOARD

Master Plan Subcommittee –

Working meeting with the Planning Board members

Minutes

September 11, 2013

MP Committee members present: Carolyn Bullock, Jean Kluk, Bob Williams, Steve Terani, Nan Schwartz.

Planning Board members present: Lynn Cook, Tom Marshall, Michelle Dagesse

1.0 The meeting was called to order by PB Chair Lynn Cook at 2:00 PM, in the Town Hall. Cook stated that we are here to go over the Master Plan update community survey and suggestions made for inclusion or deletion. She said she would like to limit the time spent to 10 minutes per page, everyone agreed.

We took a look at page one. A comment was made by Dagesse that 1-G (about how many children live with you) was an unnecessary question, after discussion everyone agreed and it was eliminated. Dagesse made a motion to approve page one with this change, Marshall seconded and all voted in favor.

We moved to page two. It was suggested by Dagesse that we combine questions 2A-3 and 4, Kluk suggested new wording. 2B was accepted as is, Dagesse made a motion to approve page two with the combined question, Schwartz seconded, all voted in favor.

We took up page three. In section 3A, Services, Cook asked about including cell service. After discussion it was decided to add that to a different section. Marshall asked about the column on spending for the services, how would people know what is being spent? Kluk explained that even if people don’t really know what is being spent on certain services, it helps to know their perceptions about spending. Bullock made a motion to approve page three, Kluk seconded, all voted in favor.

We moved to page four. Section 3B concerning facilities was considered good. In section 4A Dagesse asked why we are asking about what kind of housing people live in? Kluk answered that this was a holdout from the 2003 survey. Dagesse thought people might be offended by this question. It was agreed that we would remove this question. Everyone was fine with section 4B. Bullock made a motion to approve page four with the deletion, Marshall seconded and all voted in favor.

We took up page five. Everyone felt that 5A was fine, Cook suggested adding her question about cell service in section 5B. Kluk said we could add it here as communication services and name a few services as an example (ie.enhanced cell phone and internet services and wifi capabilities). We decided to make this question 13 and move “other” to question 14. 5C was considered fine and Dagesse motioned to approve page five, Schwartz seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

We went on to page six. Dagesse thought a lot of these questions are similar. Kluk said that we used the questions submitted by the Conservation Commission and the questions from the last survey to make this page. Some questions are similar but ask different things. Kluk motioned to approve page six, Bullock seconded and all voted in favor.

We moved to page seven. On question 7A Marshall suggested we lose question 2, everyone agreed. On question 7B, Cook suggested we expand Qs #1 and #2 to add room to suggest events for each. Schwartz motioned to approve page seven with changes, Dagesse seconded, all voted in favor.

Page eight looked good to everyone. Dagesse motioned to approve page eight as is, Bullock seconded and all voted in favor.

We then moved to the list of input from Marshall and Ken Eastman. Marshall asked if their issues should be addressed in the Master Plan. We went through their list, item by item. The first question about a seasonal town meeting we decided to add to section 7B as a #6 but change the wording to a mid-season or summer informational meeting for all property owners.

Question 2 was thought to be leading and was covered already in 3B. the group felt question 3 was covered already, implied in the services section and section 3A, we felt we could work this into a community workshop. Question 4 we felt was covered in section 6D questions 1-3. The 5^th question we felt we could add to the section 2B, by making #3 class VI roads, make #2 town maintained roads, #3 Class VI non maintained roads and lose # 7 (anywhere at all).

It was felt there was no need for question 6, but this question about perpetual garage sales could be addressed in a workshop. We decided to lose question 7 about King Street. Question 8 was discussed and we felt it had already been asked previously during the planning for the Town Hall. We decided to add question 9 and reword it, we will add it after section 3B (facilities). We felt question 10 was already covered, as well as question 11. Marshall commented that question 12 was worded wrong. This question should really be about whether people need rides for doctors’ appointments or help with shopping. We decided to make it a stand-alone question under 3B. Questions 13, 14 and 15 were eliminated by the group. Question 16, about sprinklers, was thought to be covered by the building code question. Question 17 concerning an animal control officer was decided to add to 3A services, but as a separate question. On finishing the list, Schwartz made a motion to accept the survey as modified, Bullock seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

2.0 We discussed the question brought up at the September Planning Board meeting about distribution. Kluk suggested we send one paper survey per property but allow two surveys to be returned per keycode. This way spouses can each have their say. The survey can be done by two in a household either online, on paper or a combination of either. The cover letter will explain that if the property is jointly owned, you may submit two responses to the survey. Williams wants the cover letter to encourage people to do the survey online. Kluk will add a line saying we encourage you to use the online version. Bullock made a motion to accept the cover letter with stated changes, Marshall seconded the motion, all voted in favor. Kluk made a motiuon to accept the distribution method as described, Schwartz seconded, all voted in favor.

3.0 Williams discussed finalizing the Survey Monkey version of the survey. If Kluk makes all the changes decided today and sends him a word document he can finish the online version quickly. We will have a chance to double check his version and edit it if needed. Schwartz mentioned that we will have the online survey up for 30 days and the paper versions will have a return date of October 31^st. We are hoping to mail the survey on September 20^th giving people approximately a month to do it. We decided the cut off for accepting the surveys will be a postmark of October 31^st. We will give them a few days to come in after the 31^st.

4.0 Kluk asked Marshall about a meeting between members of the committee and the Selectmen to show them the paper survey, the online version and explain how it was being distributed. He felt there was no need to meet with them, he has been keeping them apprised of what was being done.

5.0 It was decided we would meet to stuff envelopes on Thursday, September 19^th at 6:30PM at Kluk’s house. Schwartz and Kluk will run the envelopes through the postage machine on Friday the 20^th and send them out.

Meeting adjourned at 3:41 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Nan Schwartz

Planning Board Secretary