HomeMy WebLinkAboutTGSC_03302021_Packet1
MEETING POSTING
TOWN OF NANTUCKET Pursuant to MGL Chapter 30A, § 18-25 All meeting notices and agenda must be filed and time stamped with the Town Clerk’s Office and posted at least 48 hours prior to the meeting (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays)
Committee/Board/s Town Government Study Committee
Day, Date, and Time Tuesday March 30, 2021 9:00 AM
Location / Address “REMOTE PARTICIPATION VIA ZOOM Pursuant to Governor Baker’s
March 12, 2020 Order Regarding Open Meeting Law (Attached); the meeting will be aired at a later time on the Town’s Government TV YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-sgxA1fdoxteLNzRAUHIxA”
Signature of Chair or Authorized Person John B. Brescher
WARNING: IF THERE IS NO QUORUM OF MEMBERS PRESENT, OR IF MEETING POSTING IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OML STATUTE, NO MEETING MAY BE HELD!
AGENDA
Please list below the topics the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting TO JOIN MEETING https://zoom.us/j/2179151123 MEETING ID: 217 915 1123 1. Call To Order 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Public Comment 4. Approval of minutes of March 16, 2021 5. Presentation by Hillary Hedges Rayport re: NPEDC 6. Discussion: unresolved items on topics to investigate list a. Affordable Housing Trust Fund as Town Department b. Expanding role/redefining Town Government Study Committee and Town Governance Committee 7. Other Business 8. Date and time of next meeting 9. Adjournment
Town Government Study Committee
Minutes of the meeting of March 16, 2021. The meeting took place via Zoom. Members of the
committee present were: John Brescher, Rick Atherton, Campbell Sutton, Curtis Barnes, and
Tucker Holland. Hillary Hedges Rayport was present from the public.
1) Chair John Brescher called the meeting to order at 10:05 am with a quorum.
2) Agenda: A motion was made by Campbell Sutton and duly seconded by Tucker Holland
to approve the agenda as written. All voted in favor by voice vote.
3) Public Comment: Hillary Hedges Rayport introduced herself to the Committee and asked
if her presentation regarding the Nantucket Planning and Economic Development
Commission (“NPEDC”) would be under the purview of the Committee. John Brescher
noted that committee would take this up under the Chair update, but the Committee
should decide whether or not we should invite Hillary back for a more robust discussion.
Curtis Barnes asked if we should consider this part of the charge of the Committee or
not. Ultimately, the Committee felt the topic warranted discussion because even if it did
not fit directly within the mission of the Committee, it may be a topic to add to the report
to Town Meeting.
4) Meeting Minutes: A motion was made by Campbell Sutton to approve the minutes for
the meeting held on February 17, 2021. The motion was seconded by Curtis. and all
voted in favor by voice vote.
5) Chair Update re: discussion with public re: NPEDC and update on action items
John Brescher noted that the NPEDC topic was covered under Public Comment and
moved on to the next item on the agenda:
6) Discussion: unresolved items on topics to investigate list
John Brescher briefly discussed his zoom meeting with a group interested in Remote Open
Town Meeting. While the topic may be premature due to technological or legal
impediments, it was interesting to see what other Towns are planning. More information to
follow as it comes.
The Committee then discussed the review of other Charters as it relates to examples of the
organization of Town Government.
The Committee suggested that the Charter have something more forceful and it was
suggested to have a re-write of Section 4 to allow for a flow-chart and to modernize the
code.
Rick Atherton suggested that we ask Town Counsel to review/re-draft Section 4 as part of
her greater review of the Charter. Campbell asked if there was a way to expedite the matter
and Tucker suggested emailing Town Counsel and cc’ the Town Manager. The Committee
agreed this was a great idea and
John also noted that he is waiting to hear back from his contact in the State regarding what
other Towns do to allow a more robust participation for Non-Voting Tax Payers. It seems as
though the information will come from the Massachusetts Moderators Association.
Tucker Holland noted that it appears as though the seasonal residents want more of a
voice. The Committee then discussed what the non-voting taxpayers can and cannot do at
Town Meeting. Rick Atherton suggested inviting the Chair of the Advisory Committee of Non-
Voting Taxpayers to find out what, exactly, they would like.
7) Other Business:
Hilary Hedges Rayport asked if the Committee would be looking at the future of
democracy and ways to make Government and democracy more inclusive. Curtis noted
that while that’s a topic in the background, it’s not something within our charge. John
noted that it was an interesting way to circle back to the discussion regarding remote
Open Town Meeting.
Campbell Sutton suggested that we take up the role of the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund and if they should be a Town Department at the next meeting.
8) Date and Time of the Next Meeting:
The Committee’s next meeting will be at 9:00 am on Tuesday March 30, 2021 via Zoom.
9) Adjournment:
A motion was made by Curtis Barnes and seconded by Campbell Sutton to adjourn at
10:04 am.
Respectfully Submitted,
John B. Brescher, Chair
The Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission was founded in 1973 by a
special act.
This document sets forth the mission, composition, and powers of the NP&EDC, and how it
compares to neighboring Planning Commissions: The Cape Cod Commission and Martha’s
Vineyard Commission.
The question at hand is could the NP&EDC be reformed and improved. Areas for
improvement are:
• Governance and accountability
• Update mission to support balanced growth, the environment, and quality of life
• Align mission and powers with our neighboring Regional Planning Authorities: The
Cape Cod Commission and Martha’s Vineyard Commission
This briefing document is organized in two parts:
• Part I: mission, responsibilities and powers of the NP&EDC including:
• Characteristics
• Past governance recommendations
• Part II: How does the NP&EDC compare to neighboring Planning Commissions?
Part I
Mission, Responsibilities, and Powers of the NP&EDC
The Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission (NP&EDC or the Commission)
was established in 1973 by a Special Act. Since 1978, the Commission has been responsible for
comprehensive planning on Nantucket (Source: 2019 Novak Consulting Group report on PLUS).
The Commission’s mission is:
• To plan for the orderly and coordinated development and protection of the physical,
social and economic resources of the Island of Nantucket.
While the Planning Board is responsible for regulatory approvals as well as proposing,
administering, and enforcing zoning matters, the Planning Commission is responsible for longer
range plans and looking after the “physical, social and economic development of [Nantucket].”
(source: The Special Act)
• The Commission makes recommendations to the responsible county and town agencies.
The Commission has one regulatory power, which is to identify and permit Developments
of Regional Economic Impact. This is accomplished through issuing, at its discretion, a
“Development of Regional Economic Impact Permit. (DREIP).” The DREIP is in addition to
zoning and MCD permits. According to the Planning Director, the Commission has never
issued a DREIP nor has it ever established guidelines for a DREIP.
• The NPEDC also operates as Nantucket’s Regional Planning Agency (RPA). Currently,
there are 13 RPAs in the Commonwealth. The NP&EDC is the only RPA in the
Commonwealth that serves a town, a county, an island, and a region.
• Since its creation, the NP&EDC has been responsible for the appointment and oversight
of the Director of Planning through an employment agreement (this is not a
requirement of the Special Act).
Membership and Appointment
The NPEDC consists of 11 members:
• The five members of the Planning Board
• One representative from the Nantucket Housing Authority
• One representative of the County Commissioners of Nantucket County
• One representative of the Conservation Commission
• Three at-large members with staggered terms, appointed by the NP&EDC.
Prior to 2017, the NPEDC had 12 members, with the 12th being the Director of the DPW. This
seat was removed via a revision to the Special Act, adopted at Town Meeting.
Funding
The Commission appropriates funds from the Treasury of the Town of Nantucket. The RPA
designation allows Nantucket to access state and federal grants to fund transportation, transit,
economic development, and planning. Programs include 3C Transportation Planning Activities,
Highway Safety Improvement Program, District Local Technical Assistance, the annual
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) funds (awarded based on a five-year listing of
Federal and State Highway and Transit projects), CARES act funds, and other development
funds.
Governance and Past Recommendations
The NPEDC is responsible for the Town’s planning efforts, but the ultimate decision-making
authority for the Town and County rests with the Select Board. The Novak Consulting Group
reviewed PLUS in 2019, and observed a natural tension as to who is responsible for establishing
a vision or directing the Town’s planning activity and staff.
The Novak Group observed that the Town has grown and evolved its government structure
over the past nearly 50 years – principally by creating and then expanding the role of Town
Manager and defined its executive functions. The 2007 amendment to the Town Charter
further consolidated the ZBA, Historical Commission, Historic District Commission, Conservation
Commission, and Planning Board as part of Town Administration.
Importantly, the NP&EDC is neither elected by the people nor appointed by the Select Board.
The Novak Group recommended the Town consider an alternative structure for its RPA:
… As the Town’s population and economic and environmental landscape change, it may
be appropriate to evaluate the following: (1) whether the NPEDC is the appropriate
agency to serve as the RPA for Nantucket; and (2) should it have hiring authority and
determine conditions of employment for employees who report to Town
Administration…An alternative structure for the RPA could provide both efficiencies and
clarity within PLUS by consolidating Planning functions under a single Board and,
subsequently, reducing the number of Boards and Commissions and the amount of time
spent providing administrative and staff support. (May 2019 report on PLUS)
The Novak Group did not make a specific recommendation about where the RPA should live nor
did they recommend elimination of the NP&EDC.
Part II
How does the Nantucket Planning & Economic Development Commission compare to
neighboring Planning Commissions?
The Nantucket Planning Commission differs from The Cape Cod Commission and Martha’s
Vineyard Commission in three important ways:
• Composition
• Mission
• Powers
Composition
• Nantucket is the only Regional Planning Commission that is comprised of only one town.
It has 11 Commissioners:
o All five members of the Planning Board (elected by the voters)
o One representative from the Nantucket Housing Authority
o One representative of the County Commissioners of Nantucket County
o One representative of the Conservation Commission
o Three at-large members with staggered terms, appointed by the NP&EDC.
• The Cape Cod Commission (Barnstable County) has 19 Commissioners:
o 15 members, one each appointed by the Select Board of each of 15 towns
o One county commissioner appointed by the board of the county commissioners
o One Native American appointed by the board of county commissioners
o one minority appointed by the board of county commissioners
o one minority appointed by the governor, serving in an advisory role only
o The 18 voting members each have one vote
• Martha’s Vineyard (Dukes County) has 21 Commissioners
o One Selectman or a resident registered to vote from each town, appointed by
the board of selectmen from that town
o Nine persons elected at large island wide, provided that there shall not be less
than one person nor more than two persons elected from each town on
Martha's Vineyard
o One county commissioner or designee of the board of county commissioners
o one member of the cabinet, or his designee, appointed by the governor
o four persons whose principal residence is not Martha's Vineyard to be appointed
by the governor, said persons to have a voice but not vote in deciding matters
before the commission.
Observations
Nantucket is unique in several ways:
o Neighboring Commissions do not include members of town planning boards,
unless as designees of the select boards.
o The Nantucket Select Board has the right to appoint only one member to the
NP&EDC. The Conservation Commission and the Housing Authority also have a
right of appointment to the NP&EDC. This is not the case for neighboring RPAs –
they give the right of appointment to town select boards, or in the case of MV,
nine of the commissioners are elected at large.
o Sitting members of the NP&EDC appoint three at-large members to the
Commission. There are no other appointed or elected commissions on
Nantucket which appoint their own at-large members. This is always the
responsibility of the Select Board. Neighboring planning commissions do not
appoint their own members.
o Nantucket has no non-voting appointees and no governor’s appointee.
Mission
The Martha’s Vineyard Commission Act says:
• The purpose of the commission created by this act shall be to further protect the health,
safety and general welfare of island residents and visitors by preserving and conserving
for the enjoyment of present and future generations the unique natural, historical,
ecological, scientific, and cultural values of Martha's Vineyard which contribute to public
enjoyment, inspiration and scientific study, by protecting these values from
development and uses which would impair them, and by promoting the enhancement
of sound local economies.
The Cape Cod Commission Act says:
• The purpose of the Cape Cod Commission shall be to further: the conservation and
preservation of natural undeveloped areas, wildlife, flora and habitats for endangered
species; the preservation of coastal resources including aquaculture; the protection of
groundwater, surface water and ocean water quality, as well as the other natural
resources of Cape Cod; balanced economic growth; the provision of adequate capital
facilities, including transportation, water supply, and solid, sanitary and hazardous
waste disposal facilities; the coordination of the provision of adequate capital facilities
with the achievement of other goals; the development of an adequate supply of fair
affordable housing; and the preservation of historical, cultural, archaeological,
architectural, and recreational values.
The Nantucket Planning & Economic Development Commission Act says:
• In order to plan for the orderly and coordinated development and protection of the
physical, social and economic resources of the Island of Nantucket, there is hereby
established the Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission. The
Commission shall be responsible for the preparation of comprehensive plans for the
physical, social and economic development of said county and town and shall make
recommendations for action to implement said plans to the responsible county and
town agencies.
Observations
The CCC and MVC specifically seek balanced and/or sustainable growth, specifically plan for
protection of the environment and environmental resources, cultural resources, and quality of
life. The CCC also highlights planning for affordable housing.
Powers
The Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard Commission are both RPAs which, like Nantucket, create
transportation plans, apply for transportation and development grants, administer TIP funds,
and create a variety of plans (development, housing, etc.) for the region.
• All three commissions have the ability to identify, designate, and regulate Developments
of Regional Impact (Nantucket calls these DREIs) but differ in how they define these.
• The MV and CC Commissions have an additional power, which is to designate and
regulate Districts of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC). This power is granted by the
Commonwealth because of fragile regional environments or extraordinary cultural
landscapes and historic towns.
• DCPCs are used by the CCC and MVC to guide growth
• DCPCs allow CCC and MVC to ban fertilizer use outright (Nantucket does not have the
ability to ban fertilizer use).
• DCPCs allow the Commissions to pause development while necessary zoning tools and
regulations are adopted to address critical concerns. New zoning or other regulatory
changes override pre-existing unexercised grandfathered rights.
Observations
The powers granted by the Commonwealth to the CCC and MVC are unique among RPAs in the
state. Because Nantucket has only one town, it does not need to coordinate among multiple
towns’ zoning and permitting laws. Nonetheless, there are attractive elements to the ability to
designate DCPCs.
Resources and References
https://www.mvcommission.org/dcpcs
https://www.capecodcommission.org/about-us/ccc-act
https://ecode360.com/15338757
https://www.nantucket-ma.gov/306/Planning-Economic-Development-Commission
https://www.nantucket-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29539/Nantucket-PLUS-Study---
Project-Report---Revised1?bidId=