The first September meeting of the Hudson Planning Board marked the beginning of a new public input initiative – a general input session designed to allow residents to speak on matters not necessarily tied to a specific agenda item. The move follows ongoing discussions about increasing transparency and accessibility in town governance.
“I just wanted to thank this board for having general public input at the meeting this evening. I know that this has been something that you’ve worked on for many meetings,” said Heidi Jakoby, who attended as a resident. “All I was seeking from the Planning Board was the opportunity to talk about different items that I personally had to take to the Board of Selectmen to ask the liaison to bring forward to the Planning Board, because there was no public input on general matters.”
Board Chair Tim Malley emphasized that the policy was still in development and not yet finalized.
“One time, several years ago, I was told that if I had an idea, bring it forward,” added Jakoby. “I think it’s important to bring some of those ideas forward in a public setting that is recorded and that others are able to see, rather than just in writing.”
While the inclusion of public input was based on a previously approved warrant article, the proposal for a general input session was not universally supported. Some questioned whether such input was necessary to meet the requirements of the warrant article.
“I think that having public input on general things is not worth influencing items that may be on a future agenda, like maybe a site plan,” said Tim Lyko, speaking as a resident. “There are many ways a member of the public can already get their ideas to the Planning Board.”
Board members were divided on the issue.
“Having public input on a plan, and the manner in which the Planning Board currently allows it, does suffice the law and gives the public the ability to speak on any plan before this board,” said Alternate Todd Boyer. “An opinion can prejudicially get into the minds of everyone on this board, and that is a very slippery slope to the point of breaking the law. Now we could have an applicant who has the ability to take the town to court saying that the Planning Board was prejudicial on their plan, tying up money that the town doesn’t have.”
Boyer also warned that a general input session could be “opening Pandora’s box.”
“Not one case, in the history of this state, has ever been overturned because of public input,” claimed Board member Victor Oates. “That’s a lot of cases, and that’s a lot of input that’s been provided through the generations.”
Oates expressed support for at least trying the public input proposal and believed the Planning Board should not worry about “hypothetical” applicants.
“Everything that’s come across this board has a public input session,” said Alternate George Hurd, who felt that generalized public input was redundant. “Effectively, we already have it.”
Board member Julia Paquin noted that even on controversial plans, public turnout was often low.
“I’d be pretty excited if people would actually show up and take their opinions and ideas to actually voice them in a way that would allow us to see what the people in the town were looking for and what they want,” she said. “Just somebody coming here and causing a distraction doesn’t influence my opinion.”
Vice-Chair Jordan Ulery compared the situation to improperly influencing a juror.
“Since we’re quasi-judicial, we would be, in effect, allowing someone to emote to us about how they feel about something that may, in the future, come to us,” he said. “We need to isolate our listening to a degree, to the issue directly in front of us at the time.”
Malley stated that he was “very much in opposition” to non-agenda input sessions.
After an extensive back-and-forth debate, the Planning Board voted four-to-three in favor of implementing a non-agenda public input policy on an interim basis for the next three months.
