The Planning Board on Monday reviewed proposed amendments to the town charter that concerned the board’s timeline for a master plan revision and its feedback on the town employees with whom it works most closely.

The Charter Review Committee (CRC) has been working on proposed amendments to the town charter for several months. It originally intended to bring forth its recommendations at the Oct. 26 Special Town Meeting. Members decided to wait until next May’s Annual Town Meeting so that more public feedback could be gathered.

There will be a public forum with the CRC this Wednesday evening to discuss its proposed changes and get input from the public and board members affected by any potential revisions.

Chair Matthew Wronka gave a presentation to the board about these two issues directly affecting it, noting that the CRC requested input. He said the wording had not been reviewed by counsel, but he said he looked at several other communities for suggested language.

The first was about including language about the master plan and its time frame in the charter.

The second was about the potential removal of the defunct town planner title from the charter. Discussion then revolved around  whether the board should substitute the Land Use Department director’s title instead. Members also debated if the board should provide input on the performance and goals of the principal planner and/or the Land Use Department director.

Master plan update intervals proposed

Wronka noted that the master plan tends to be updated at 10-year intervals. Adding a timetable to the charter “forces us to stay on top of it,” he said.

He suggested in the draft that a 15-year cycle for a comprehensive update of the master plan be implemented, since it involves several years of public feedback. It would be reviewed every five years. The update process would start at the 10-year mark under this plan. There would be a public review at five-year intervals.

Member Brian Johnson said the board should have regular internal updates on any progress. He indicated oversight previously had slipped through the cracks during the last 10 years.

Members were mostly receptive to this plan. They voted 8-1 to recommend that the Charter Review Committee add a section to the charter containing this language. Member Rob Benson voted against it.

Board input on staff debated

Wronka asked members for feedback about whether the board should be involved in the goal-setting process and performance review of the principal planner and/or the Land Use Department director.

His theory was that engaging in this way with the director would have a “trickle-down effect” that also would encompass the principal planner’s performance. Member Michael King agreed.

Mimmo, who is also the CRC vice chair, said he was “not particularly interested in being a personnel manager for a professional town employee.”

Benson agreed. He said the principal planner tends to advise the board on its decisions. It seemed inappropriate to him to review someone who is giving the board guidance.

He added that board members can raise concerns about staff at any time to the appropriate members or eventually to the town manager if issues escalate.

Other members said they would like to provide input into the appointment or review of the staff members who advise them to gain clarity on their goals for the town.

“I think that our voice and our say could have a lot of value for whoever’s making the final decision,” said member Elyse Mihajloski.

After a lengthy discussion, the board voted 6-2-1 to recommend to the CRC that language indicate that the town manager would appoint professional staff with input from the board. Mimmo and Benson were against this, while Mihajloski abstained. Wronka, Lopez, Happ, King, Johnson and Amna Diwan were in favor.

Main Street development hearings continued

At the start of the meeting, Wronka announced that the three hearings regarding a proposed 13-unit mixed-use development at 14 Main Street and 10 Walcott Street were continued at the applicant’s request. One hearing was for a major site plan review. The others were for special permit requests and a stormwater permit.

These are slated to be discussed at the next meeting on Oct. 5.