A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to debating the extent to which board members and the public should be allowed to join meetings via video conferencing. Amid the ongoing discussions, the board considered several logistical challenges, including document sharing, maintaining quorum, voting rights for remote participants, and the potential need for additional staff and resources to facilitate digital engagement. While some members proposed limits on the frequency of remote participation, others focused on ensuring that the remote experience mirrors in-person meetings as closely as possible, with full capabilities for hearing, speaking, and reviewing documents.

The conversation on remote participation also touched on how to provide public access to meetings, including the possibility of live streaming and call-in options for questions. The board deliberated on whether to follow the council’s current method of streaming public meetings, which would not require screen sharing of documents, as they are made available in person 10 days prior to the meeting. The board agreed to further refine the remote participation policy and to address the logistical and technical considerations associated with implementing it for both board members and the public.

In addition to remote participation, the meeting delved into the reexamination of the Fair Haven Master Plan. The board acknowledged the statutory requirement to reexamine the plan every ten years and discussed the timeline for public engagement and drafting the reexamination report. There was a consensus on the importance of comprehensive public engagement and adhering to legal requirements for incorporating public input.

The board members debated the role of a planner in updating the Master Plan, expressing a desire to lead the process with expert guidance, rather than having it become a routine exercise. They discussed reviewing the previous reexamination report to identify persistent and emerging issues, considering demographic changes that might impact housing and parking needs, and ensuring that state law changes, such as electronic vehicle charging station regulations, are reflected in the Master Plan.

The potential burden on developers was also a concern, with the board emphasizing the need to ensure that new requirements are appropriately integrated into the Master Plan. The members contemplated forming groups to lead the development of different sections of the Master Plan, reflecting its various elements.

The board discussed starting with a community survey to gather input on various aspects of the Master Plan, such as recycling, land use, housing, circulation, facilities, utilities, historic preservation, and conservation. Opinions varied on the best approach to gathering feedback and the timeline for completing the reexamination. The board considered seeking input from planners to finalize survey questions and establish a detailed process timeline.