SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM SURVEY OF TOWNS

USING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARDS

In November of 2004, I was asked to undertake a telephone survey of ten communities that had opted to establish Development Review Boards to handle development review responsibilities under Vermont’s Planning Law, 24 V.S.A., Chapter 117. The study was requested by the Hinesburg Development Review Board (DRB) as input to an internal review of possible ways that its operations could be further improved.

Out of the 43 Vermont Cities, Towns, and Villages that have adopted the Development Review Board approach, a total of ten communities were selected for this study. Selection criteria included location in or near Chittenden County, size ranging from slightly smaller than Hinesburg to slightly larger, and a reasonable length of experience with the DRB. The following table shows the ten communities selected.

DRB TOWN SELECTION TABLE
	2003 Pop.	2003 Permits	Last Zoning	Select?
Town	Estimate	Permits/Units	Update	Y/N
Colchester	17176	35/58	8/13/04	Y
Hinesburg	4427	19/19	9/17/04
Jericho	5066	14/14	1/21/03	Y
Milton	9924	67/95	6/07/04	Y
South Burlington	14946	132/132	4/06/04	Y
Williston	8156	46/47	6/07/04	Y
Enosburg Falls (Vill.)	na	na	9/14/04	Y
St. Albans Town	5718	35/58	7/19/04	Y
Grand Isle	2194	25/41	12/04/03	Y
Hyde park	3015	28/28	06/04/03	Y
Morrisville/Morristown	6447	38/44	02/03/04	Y

A series of questions was developed, based on discussions with Hinesburg staff and observation of a DRB meeting. This was reviewed with the Hinesburg Planner before being used to guide the interviews. Since the interviews were to be conducted by telephone, it was not necessary to create a formal, self guiding questionnaire instrument. A copy of the list of questions is attached as an appendix to this report. The list includes questions to determine background and history with the DRB, questions of staffing and staff responsibilities, questions relating to meeting procedures, and questions describing output or results.

In all cases I attempted to interview the person who was primarily responsible for staffing the DRB in the respondent community. In most (8) cases I spoke with the Zoning Administrator. In one case I spoke with a Development Review Coordinator, and in another I spoke with a Planning Assistant who was assigned to staffing the DRB. What follows is a summary of the responses to the list of questions.

Background Questions:

· Eight of the ten communities have had a DRB for at least five years. The other two are new DRB users, having had such a structure for 1.5 and 2 years, respectively. All told, the average was 5.1 years. The longest running DRB has been operating for eight years.

· In nine of the ten communities, the initial DRBs included members of the former Zoning Boards of Adjustment. In the tenth community the staff person was not there at the time and did not know.

· In six of the ten communities the initial DRBs included members of the Planning Commissions. Again, the information was not available in one community.

· On only three of the ten DRBs are there currently members who also sit on their Planning Commissions. However, several respondents reported that there were Planning Commission members appointed as alternate members of their DRBs.

· The average size of the DRBs was 6.6 members, with size ranging from five to nine. The most common size was seven members, reported by six of the ten communities.

· Six towns reported that they had alternate members, ranging in number from two to five. The average number of alternate members was three.

· DRBs generally meet twice a month, although two communities reported that their DRBs meet only once a month. In all cases it was noted that if there were no projects to review, meetings would be skipped. A couple of communities stated that they would hold special meetings if necessary to keep a project moving along.

· Given the range of community sizes, it is not surprising that there is considerable variation in the number of cases considered at a typical meeting. The range was 1.5 to eight cases, with the average being 4.6.

· There was a similar variation in reported meeting length, ranging from two hours to over six hours. The average was three hours.

· The DRB meetings are tape recorded in nine of ten of the communities. Similarly, nine of the ten communities report that the official minutes of the meetings are summaries of key points and motions. The tapes are generally used to assist in creating the written minutes. Only one community reported that the minutes were verbatim transcriptions of the tape recordings.

Staffing Questions:

· In general, the Town’s Zoning Administrators staffed their DRBs. Two of the smaller towns used a part time clerk to staff the Board but noted that the Zoning Administrator (ZA) meets with applicants but does not attend DRB meetings. In the larger towns multiple persons were identified as staff to the DRB, including the ZA, the Town Planner, and sometimes a Planning Assistant or a Development Review Coordinator.

· Two towns reported that their primary DRB staff person worked only twelve hours per week. One reported thirty hours per week. The remaining seven reported full time DRB staff persons.

· The ZA typically had other responsibilities, generally the administration of all zoning matters such as permits, fees, enforcement, etc. In four cases the ZA is also the Town Planner and is responsible for staffing the Planning Commission and doing long range planning work. In the larger communities where multiple staff was assigned to DRB work, the staff works together closely, usually under the direction of the Town Planner or the Zoning Administrator.

· In all cases, staff prepared agendas for the DRB meetings.

· Except for the town that uses a DRB Clerk, DRB staff reported that it regularly met with applicants prior to DRB meetings. In the town with the clerk, it was reported that the ZA met with applicants.

· In seven of the ten towns, staff reported that they did detailed reviews of proposed developments prior to DRB review.

· In six of the ten towns, staff reported that it prepared detailed, written staff reports on proposed developments prior to DRB review.

· In the six towns where staff prepared written reports, staff also prepared suggested conditions for approval.

· In nine of the ten towns, staff prepares the final decision. The exception is a town in which the minutes of the meeting constitute the written decision. In this case the Board crafts the motion of decision, including any conditions, and votes on the motion. When the chair signs the minutes after approval at the next meeting, the decision becomes official.

· In five of the ten towns staff reported actually taking minutes. This may reflect a misunderstanding of the questions. If there was someone other than board members taking minutes, it was interpreted as staff in some cases while in other cases if the town retained a recording secretary it was not interpreted as staff.

· In all cases, staff attends all DRB meetings. Where there is multiple staff, all attend the meetings.

· In seven of the ten towns, staff reported doing a review of applications early enough to allow deficiencies to be identified and corrected prior to the DRB review. In some cases this was a cursory review only to determine completeness (see next question). Two of the seven report that they do an early review only if they have time.

· In seven of the ten communities staff reported that they generally determine that applications are complete before scheduling them for DRB review. In one case this was done only for larger applications. In the smaller communities, no such determination was made prior to DRB review.

· Of the six towns where staff reported that they prepare detailed written reports, staff in five communities reported that the reports were distributed to Board members and applicants prior to the DRB meeting. In most cases this means that the reports were distributed during the second half of the week prior to the meeting. One town reported sending the reports to applicants two weeks before the meeting. In one town the staff reported that the reports are distributed at the meeting. In all cases, reports are distributed to others only if specifically requested.

· Of the six towns where staff reported that they prepare detailed written reports, staff in five cases indicate that the reports contain suggested conditions for approval. One staff person noted that suggested conditions were not part of the reports, but were distributed to the Board during the discussion.

Procedure Questions:

· None of the ten communities have adopted the Municipal Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA) to guide DRB operations.

· In none of the ten communities do DRBs conduct “on the record” reviews.

· Eight of the ten communities report that witnesses are sworn in before they offer testimony at meetings. In general this is a group swearing at the beginning of a meeting where everyone who thinks they may speak are asked to rise and take the oath. In one of the two community where witnesses are not sworn, the staff feels that the Board should revise its procedures to include that practice.

· In all ten cases the staff reported that their DRB follows Robert’s Rules of Order or some similar format, which may be referenced in the Board’s adopted rules of procedure.

· In one of the ten communities staff reported that the DRB required people to sign up in advance if they wished to testify at a meeting.

· In eight of the ten communities the Board allows virtually anyone attending the meeting to speak if they wish. In two communities there was an attempt to limit participation to abutters or “interested parties” as defined in the statute.

· In all cases, notice of the meeting was sent to all abutters. However, staff reports were only distributed if specifically requested in advance.

· On a subjective level, most DRB staff who distribute reports feel that most DRB members read them prior to the meeting. In one case the reports are distributed at the meeting, in part because staff felt that the volunteer members will not have time to read them in advance.

· In general, DRBs do not do site visits except for complex developments or where there is the possibility of significant visual impacts, or where there is difficult topography. The determination is often made at the DRB meeting and scheduled for a future meeting. In some cases individual board members visit the sites prior to meetings.

· In all ten cases staff reported that they participate in open meetings and hearings. In only nine cases did staff report participating in deliberative sessions. When asked to describe their participation, all stated that their role was to answer questions about the staff reports and/or the regulations. When asked if they questioned applicants or other witnesses they generally said no, although one said on rare occasions if something pertinent to the regulations needed to be brought out. When asked if they participated in DRB discussions about applications, all said no. One staff person offered the opinion that the ZA was essentially a party to the review, just like the applicant, and should not participate in closed deliberations. In all cases, when the matter under review was an appeal of a decision by the ZA, the ZA’s role in the discussions was very limited and formal.

· In eight of the ten communities staff reported that their DRBs always used deliberative sessions (some stated that this might be omitted for decisions that are extremely simple and straightforward. In the other two communities it was reported that the board frequently uses deliberative sessions, but not always.

· When asked if the DRB ever found applications to be incomplete after the formal review was underway, staff in four towns said that it rarely occurred, staff in four towns said that it occurred sometimes, and staff in two towns said that it never occurred. When an application was found to be incomplete, the Board generally recessed the review to a future meeting. One staff members said that occasionally a board member would vote to deny an incomplete application.

· In nine of the ten communities it was reported that the DRBs generally issue decisions with formal findings and conclusions and conditions of approval. The exception was the town in which the decision was in the minutes. Even in that community, decisions on appeals of actions by the ZA were more formal with findings and conclusions. The ZA in that town felt that it would probably be good if the DRB began issuing formal decisions in all cases.

· In eight of the ten communities (including the town where the decision is in the minutes), the DRBs craft their decisions (usually in closed session) and then immediately vote on them in open session. Staff then drafts the written decision based on the discussion and the motion. This is circulated to at least the board chair for correction and then signature by the chair. It becomes official upon being signed. In the other two communities the decision is drafted by staff and voted on at the next meeting.

Output and Results Questions:

· Staff, at least, appear to be happy with the functioning of their DRBs. All reported that they felt that they had a good procedure that worked well and eliminated some duplicate meetings. The one negative was a comment that the Board occasionally overstepped its authority.

· When asked of they had any sense of how applicants felt about their DRBs, most staff reported that they had not heard anything and assumed that applicants were satisfied, or that they had heard nothing but positive comments. The exceptions include a report that applicants felt that the Board occasionally overstepped its authority, and a reported concern with the use of closed deliberations.

· Nine of the ten staff persons reported that they felt that the Board’s decisions were expeditious.

· When asked how many DRB meetings it would take for a typical site plan approval, the range of answers was from one to three meetings, with an average of 1.4.

· When asked how many DRB meetings it would take to obtain sketch or concept approval for a subdivision, the answers ranged from one to two meetings with an average of 1.2. Note that one of the ten communities does not have subdivision regulations.

· When asked how many DRB meetings would be required t obtain preliminary subdivision approval, the answers ranged from one to two meetings with an average of 1.3. Again, note that one of the ten communities does not have subdivision regulations.

· When asked how many months it would take for a typical minor subdivision (2-3 lots) to go completely through the process, the answers ranged from one to fifteen months, with an average of 2.6 months. In the town reporting fifteen months, it must be noted that the approval process for residential developments includes obtaining a preliminary phasing allocation which can only be obtained once a year. In all cases it was noted that the total time depended on how quickly the applicant turns around material for the next steps in the process.

· When asked how many months it would take for a typical major subdivision (8 + lots) to go completely through the process, the answers ranged from three to eighteen months, with an average of 6.3 months. Again, note that the town reporting the longest time has an extra step in the approval process for residential developments, as noted above. Again, the total time depended on how quickly the applicant turns around material for the next steps in the process.

· When asked how far into the future they are scheduling DRB meetings, two towns reported that they were scheduling at the next meeting (approximately two weeks) but the average lead time was 1.5 months.

More details on the above findings are presented in the following table.

Number of Meetings For:											mean	median	mode
Site Plan	1	1	1.5	1	1	1.5	3	2	1	1	1.4	1	1
Sketch	1	1	1	1	1	1.5	2	1	--	1	1.2	1	1
Prelim	1	1.5	1.5	1	1.5	--	2	1	--	1	1.5	1.25	1
Number of Months For:
Minor	6	1	2	5	15	--	3	2	--	2	2.6	2.5	2
Major	10.5	12	12	9	18	--	6	3	--	3.5	6.25	9.75	12
Lead Time for Agendas (months)
	3	1.5	2	1.5	2	0.5	2	1	1	0.5	1.5	1.5	1.5-2.0