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 |
·
When
asked if they could suggest any improvements to their DRB operations, seven of
the ten respondents offered suggestions.
These are summarized below:
·
More
training for DRB members, particularly on how to reduce the amount of
repetitive comments at hearings (mentioned tree times)
·
Amend
the Ordinance to include a waiver to set backs or change the variance criteria
(mentioned once)
·
The
Board should follow the bylaws more closely (mentioned once)
·
Speed
up turnaround time for decisions (mentioned once)
·
Make
sure that applications include all information required by Board (mentioned
once)
·
Better
quality applications (mentioned once)
·
DRB
should issue formal decisions, swear witnesses, and reconsider use of closed
deliberative sessions (mentioned once)
The
Town of Hinesburg created its Development Review Board approximately two years
ago[1]. The Board contains nine members and meets
twice per month. There are typically
four items on an agenda and meetings reportedly last approximately four
hours. Meetings are not tape-recorded
but minutes provide a summary of key statements and actions. Recently the Board has started using closed
deliberative sessions. The DRB is
currently served by three staff members, each of which devote a portion of
their time to DRB matters. Staff
currently prepares technical staff reports but does not provide suggested
conditions for approval. Packets are
distributed to the Board and applicants on the Thursday prior to Tuesday
meetings. The DRB does not do “On The
Record” reviews and does not swear in witnesses. Meetings are informally run.
Deliberations tend to lead to consensus which is the basis on which
staff prepares a draft written decision.
The decision is acted upon at a subsequent meeting. The typical times for approvals appear to be
slightly longer than the averages reported by the ten communities surveyed.
Beginning
in the summer of 2004 the Town has been reviewing the DRB and looking for ways
in which it might be improved. This
study is a part of that review.
As
a starting point it is noted that the Development Review Board serves the Town
as a whole by carrying out the development review activities spelled out in the
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
Consistent with Vermont’s Planning Law, these include Site Plan
Approval, Subdivision Approval, Conditional Use Approval, hearings on requests
for Variances, and hearings on appeals of decision by the Zoning
Administrator. The Board is to
literally enforce the provisions of the ordinance and regulations. Ideally, the Ordinance and Regulations are
sufficiently clear that there are few instances where the DRB makes
discretionary decisions. Development
Review decisions should be based on whether or not the application satisfies
the requirements of the Ordinance and/ or Regulations, and whether or not there
are specific conditions which, if implemented, will cause the application to
satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance and/or Regulations.
The
question becomes how to allow the Board to do its work efficiently and
expeditiously. There are three sets of
factors or issues that can facilitate the Board’s work; a) staffing issues; b) meeting process
issues; and c) the availability of adequate information. Comments regarding the first two sets are
based largely on the survey results, supplemented by my experience. Comments regarding the third set are based
almost entirely on my experience.
Staffing Concerns:
In
Hinesburg the Planning and Zoning (Department) is made up of three positions,
two of which are full time. All three
positions provide staffing to the DRB. Based on the staff hours analysis
conducted during the fall of 2004, it would appear that the sum total of the
time devoted to DRB work from all three positions is approximately one full
time equivalent position. It is not
clear that there is any one person responsible for ensuring timely and
consistent support to the DRB. The
Administrative Assistant does the initial reviews of applications for
completeness. The Zoning Administrator
and the Town Planner divide the applications between them, each taking their assigned cases from technical
reviews through to drafting the final decisions for Board action.
For
purposes of analysis it is useful to distinguish between clerical staff support
and technical staff support. Clerical
staff support includes taking and preparing minutes of meetings, preparing agendas
of meetings, ensuring that copies of decisions and agendas are properly filed,
and the administrative aspects of processing applications to be heard by the
Board. Technical staff support includes
meeting with applicants, reviewing applications, preparing staff reports (if
used), preparing suggested conditions of approval (if used), and advising the
Board and applicants regarding the requirements of the Ordinance and
Regulations.
Clerical
support can easily be provided by someone other than the technical support
staff. Minutes are often taken by
outside recording secretaries. Agendas
can be prepared based on communication with the technical support staff. It is important that an application not be
placed on a DRB agenda until staff has determined that the application is
complete.
Technical
support to the DRB must be timely, rigorous and consistent. Where technical support is shared between
two or more individuals, there should be one person designated as responsible
for timeliness and content of the work.
The actual work may be delegated but that one person must ensure that
projects are properly reviewed, the requirements of the Ordinance and/or
Regulations are made clear, and that all information is clearly presented to
the Board. In order to do this it is
important that this designated person attend the Board’s meeting.
What
follows is a list of technical support tasks, which will facilitate the DRB in
its reviews and deliberations. It is
understood that the staff person cannot speak for the Board and cannot make any
commitments. The staff person puts
forth the Town’s requirements as set forth in the Ordinance and/or Regulations.
·
An
informal discussion with applicants prior to submission of an actual
application. At this point the staff person
can raise any red flags regarding compliance at an early stage so they can be
addressed prior to significant project design expenditures. Staff can also brief applicants on how to
expect the approval process to unfold.
·
Once
an application is received, staff should conduct an initial review to ensure
that all required application materials are included. This determination should be based on a comprehensive check list
for the type of approval being sought.
There should be a place on the application form or folder to note the
date on which the application is considered complete. A project should not be placed on a DRB agenda until it is
complete.
·
A
detailed technical review of the project, based on all of the requirements set
forth in the Ordinance and/or Regulations should be completed, using all of the
information provided in the application plus staff’s knowledge of the site and
area. This technical review should be
recorded in a technical staff report.
This should systematically go through all requirements, noting those
that appear to be met and those that are problematic. Staff may develop a shell or template document to facilitate this
review. The report should note areas
where staff believes that no conclusions can be reached, either because the
information provided in the application is insufficient or because the
regulations are unclear. The staff
report should be distributed to the applicant (and representatives) and to the
Board.
·
If
staff believes that the proposed development can be made to comply with the
Town’s Ordinance and/or Regulations only if certain conditions are satisfied,
staff should include in the report suggested conditions to approval. If staff believes that the proposed
development is so far from what the ordinance/ and/or Regulations requires that
there is no reasonable way to bring it into compliance, staff should recommend
that the application be denied.
·
Staff
should be available at the DRB meeting to explain to the Board the basis for
the technical review and suggested conditions, and should be prepared to answer
questions at the Board meeting. Once
the information has been conveyed to the Board, staff should not debate the
matter. It is the Board’s prerogative
to accept, modify and accept, or reject staff recommendations.
·
At
DRB meetings staff must maintain a position of neutral objectivity (It matters
not whether staff “likes” an application, only whether the application
satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance and/or Regulations.) It is not appropriate for staff to enter
into the Board’s debate on the merits of the application. It is appropriate for staff, when asked, to
answer questions related to the regulations and perhaps to help with language
for conditions.
As
noted above, it is important that there be one staff person designated as
responsible for seeing that all of the technical support activities are
completed in a timely manner and consistently represent the requirements in the
regulations.
Meeting Process Concerns:
Meeting
process concerns relate to activities that keep meetings moving in a productive
and time efficient manner. Addressing
these concerns is, to a large extent, up to the Board Chair. It must always be remembered that the
purpose of the Board is to effectively ensure that proposed development
complies with the Town’s written and adopted regulations (Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations). What follows
are some suggestion on how meetings can be effective and efficient. A more detailed version of these suggestions
is contained in the appendix.
·
The
meeting should observe some format such as Robert’s Rules in order to maintain
orderliness and civility.
·
People
should speak only after being recognized by the chair.
·
All
witnesses should be sworn before they present testimony
·
Staff
reports should be made part of the minutes.
·
The
Board should hear the application in the following sequence:
1.
General
presentation of the proposed development by the applicant.
2.
Applicant’s
response to issues raised in the staff report (not proposed conditions at this
point)
3.
Applicant’s
comments on the suggested conditions.
4.
Questions
by Board members
5.
Audience
comments on the application.
6.
Closing
of hearing or discussion. (Note: The hearing may be recessed to preserve the
option of re-opening it to obtain additional specific information.)
·
Deliberations: On the basis of information gathered during
the hearing or open session (including the staff report and all representation
made by the applicant and other sworn witnesses) the Board considers whether
the application complies with all requirements of the Town’s Ordinance and/or
Regulations. Deliberations may be open
or closed, but if open the applicant must not participate unless asked a
specific question by the Board. The
deliberations should lead to one of three conclusions:
1.
If
the application, as submitted, does satisfy all requirements, a decision to
approve the application can be crafted.
2.
If
there are requirements that are not satisfied, can conditions be applied that
will bring the application into compliance?
If so, a decision to approve with those
conditions can be crafted.
3.
If
the application does not comply with all requirements, and if there are no
reasonable conditions that will bring it into compliance, a decision to deny
the application should be crafted.
·
Action: If the Board has been in closed deliberative
session it should return to the open meeting.
A motion should be made and acted upon, which incorporates the decision
crafted during deliberations.
·
Written
decision: Based on the motion, staff
can prepare a formal written decision for signature by the chair. This may be distributed in draft form to
board members prior to being signed.
The
above steps outline a general set of procedures that the Board can follow to
keep its reviews and decisions expeditious.
Whatever process the board uses, it is important that applicants have
realistic expectations about how the Board’s reviews and deliberations will
take place. The procedures may be
memorialized in the Board’s adopted operating rules of procedure. Perhaps more important, a description of the
process should be conveyed to every applicant, perhaps as a part of an
application package. Also, whenever staff meets with applicants, the process
should be described, unless the applicant is already familiar with it.
Information Concerns:
The Board’s review and decision on any application is based on whether or not the application complies with the requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and/or Subdivision Regulations. To make such a determination the board must have adequate information. Information about the proposed development is provided by the applicant in the application package. The quality of the information provided in the application will have a significant impact on the time required for the application to wend its way through the process to a decision. Information regarding the Town’s Regulations is provided by staff.
A: Information About the Proposed Development: The starting point for ensuring adequate information is the list
of application materials included in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations. This should include
specification of the minimum items of information for each type of application. In addition, any information typically
needed for the Board to determine compliance with specific requirements of the
Ordinance and Regulations should be listed.
Together these make up a checklist for each type of application. The checklist should be a part of an
application package given to any prospective applicant before an application is
submitted.
The
Zoning Ordinance and/or Subdivision Regulations should specify under what
conditions engineering drawings and/or certification will be required for
improvements such as streets and roads, driveways, connections to public water
and sewer systems, on-site waste water treatment systems, stormwater treatment
systems, etc. These requirements should
be reflected in the checklist.
An
initial review by staff should determine whether or not all items on the checklist
have been provided. Note that satisfying the checklist does not imply that an
affirmative decision will be made, only that the necessary information for a
decision has been provided. Only after
the application has been deemed complete should it be scheduled for Board
review.
B: Information regarding the Town’s
Regulations: Assuming that the applicant has provided the
necessary information describing the project, staff must merge it with
technical information describing the Town’s requirements as set forth in the
regulations. In the ideal world the
staff report will individually address each requirement and present staff's
judgement as to whether the requirement is met or not. If a requirement is not met, staff should
suggest one or more conditions that would bring the application into
compliance. This rigorous format
provides a sound information base for both the discussions at the hearing or
open session and the Board’s deliberations.
It is critically important that staff be impartial and objective in conducting this review and drafting the staff report. Whether or not staff likes the proposed development is irrelevant. The only question is whether the proposed development complies with all of the Town’s requirements, or can be made compliant by the imposition of a set of clear conditions.
This
information, perhaps supplemented by information gathered at the hearing, will
serve as the basis for the Board’s decisions.
Having the information complete and presented in a carefully organized manner
can significantly reduce the time required for the DRB review, both at the
hearing and during deliberations.
The
preceding pages present a somewhat idealized model of DRB operations. There is no question that many of the
individual elements of this model already exist in Hinesburg. It is hoped that the Town will adapt the
ideal model in ways that will further facilitate the DRB’s efforts.
1.
List of questions used to
guide the interviews
2.
Detailed discussion of
meeting process concerns.
DRB SURVEY QUESTIONS
Name of Town
________________________
Background
Questions:
1.
How
long has your town used a Development Review Board (DRB)? ______
2.
When
the DRB was first formed, did the membership include members of the former
Zoning Board? _____, or Planning Commission? ______
3.
Are
there currently any Planning Commission members on the DRB? ______
4.
How
many members does the DRB have? ______
5.
How
often does the DRB meet? ______
6.
How
many cases are on a typical DRB agenda? ______
7.
How
long does a typical DRB meeting last? ______
8.
Are
DRB Meetings recorded? ______
9.
Are
minutes verbatim or do they include only important items to capture the gist of
the discussion? ________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Staffing
Questions:
1.
Who
provides staff support to the DRB?
Zoning Administrator? ___, Other? ____
2.
Is
there a single staff person who serves the DRB? ______
3.
Is
the staff person full time or part time? _____ If PT, how many hrs per week ____
4.
Does
the staff person have other responsibilities?
What are they? ________________
5.
What
does staff do for the DRB?
·
Prepare
agendas? ______
·
Meet
with Applicants? ______
·
Determine
whether applications are complete? ______
·
Conduct
Project Reviews? ______
·
Prepare
detailed staff reviews of applications? ______
·
Prepare
recommended decision and conditions? ______
·
Draft
final decisions? ______
·
Take
minutes of Meetings? ______
·
Participate
in DRB discussions? ______
·
Other
(describe __________________________________________________
6.
Does
the staff person attend all DRB meetings? ______
7.
Does
staff do an initial review of applications early enough to allow deficiencies
to be identified and corrected before formal staff reports are prepared?
________
8.
Does
staff determine that applications are complete before scheduling a review by
the DRB? _________
9.
Are
staff reports distributed to applicants in time to allow improvements prior to
the DRB meeting? ________________________________________________________
10.
Are
staff reports distributed to Board members in time to allow them to be read
prior to the DRB meeting? ___________________________________________________
11.
If
staff reports are prepared, do they include suggested conditions for approval?
____
Procedural
Questions:
1.
Has
the Town adopted the Municipal Administrative Procedures Act to guide the DRB?
_____
2.
Does
the DRB do “On the record” reviews _____
3.
Does
the DRB swear in witnesses who give testimony? ______
4.
Does
the DRB follow any format such as Robert’s Rules of Order? ______
5.
Does
the DRB require people to sign up in advance of they wish to testify at a
meeting? ______
6.
Is
anyone allowed to speak at meetings or only abutters of applications being
heard? _____________________________________________________________________
7.
Does
the DRB send notice to all abutters of pending applications? _______________
8.
Are
staff reports distributed prior to meetings?
To DRB members? ____, To Applicants? ____, To others? ______
9.
Does
the DRB send copies of staff reports to all abutters prior to meetings? ______
10.
Do
DRB members typically read staff reports prior to the meetings? ____________
11.
Does
the DRB do site visits? Always? ___, On
Complex applications only? ____. Rarely? _____, Never? _____
12.
What
is the role of the staff person at DRB meetings? Observe only? _____, Present staff report and answer questions of
fact? _____, Participates in discussion, questions applicants, just like Board
members? _____, Other? _____
13.
Does
the DRB use closed deliberative sessions?
No? ____, Occasionally? ____, Frequently? ____, Always? ____
14.
How
often does the DRB determine that an application being reviewed is not
complete? _____ What happens in such
cases? ______________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
15.
Does
the DRB issue formal decisions containing Findings and Conclusions? ______
16.
If
not, what form do DRB decisions take? ___________________________________
17.
Does
the Board craft its decisions at meetings? ____, or agree on items to be
included and let staff draft decisions for vote at a future meeting? ____ or
other? ___________
_____________________________________________________________________
Results
Questions:
1.
Are
you happy with the way your DRB functions? _____ Why? ________________
2.
How
have applicants reacted to the DRB? ______________ Are they satisfied? ____
Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
3.
Are
applications reviewed and decisions reached expeditiously? ________
4.
How
many DRB meetings are required for a typical Site Plan Approval? ______
5.
How
many meetings are required for a typical sketch or concept approval of a
proposed subdivision? ______
6.
How
many meetings are required for a typical Preliminary Subdivision approval? ___
7.
How
long does it typically take for a small (2-3 lots) subdivision to get
completely through the process? ______
8.
How
long does it typically take for a large (8 + lots) subdivision to get
completely through the process? ______
9.
How
far into the future are projects scheduled for DRB review? ______
10.
What
do you think could be improved? _____________________________________
Meeting Process Concerns:
Meeting
process concerns relate to activities that keep meetings moving in a productive
and time efficient manner. Addressing
these concerns is, to a large extent, up to the Board Chair. It must always be remembered that the
purpose of the Board is to effectively ensure that proposed development
complies with the Town’s written and adopted regulations (Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations). What follows
are some suggestion on how meetings can be effective and efficient.
·
The
meeting should observe some format such as Robert’s Rules in order to maintain
orderliness and civility. This can be
referenced in the Board’s operating rules and procedures. Having such a format can greatly assist the
chair in keeping the meetings moving forward.
·
People
should speak only after being recognized by the chair.
·
All
witnesses should be sworn before they present testimony. This can be done at the beginning of the
meeting by asking everyone present who thinks they might wish to speak to stand
and repeat the oath. Later in the
meeting witnesses can be asked to verify that they have taken the oath. If not they can be sworn before they
testify. This is an important factor, particularly for applicants and their
representatives. Every statement made
by the applicant about his/her proposed development is evidence used by the
Board to determine whether or not the development complies with the Town’s
regulations. It must be truthful. In a sense, these representations become
conditions of approval.
·
Staff
reports should be made part of the minutes.
When an application is opened for consideration at the meeting the Chair
should confirm that the applicant has seen the staff report and ask if the
applicant will waive formal reading of the report and allow it to be entered
into the minutes. The alternative is to
literally read the entire staff report, word by word, into the minutes. I have never heard of this request for waiver
being refused.
·
The
chair should then ask the applicant to present the proposal according to the
following outline. (These are not intended to be taken literally, but to
describe a process and sequence of events):
1.
The
chair should then ask the applicant to make a general presentation of the
proposed development.
2.
The
chair will ask the applicant if he/she has any response to issues raised in the
staff report (not proposed conditions at this point). These issues should be discussed in order.
3.
When
all aspects of the proposed development have been discussed, the chair may then
ask the applicant if they have any comments on the suggested conditions. It is important to note that even though an
applicant may not like a condition, it may be necessary to bring the
application into compliance with the Town’s regulations.
4.
At
this point the chair may invite members of the audience to comment on the
application. (Note, most towns allow
anyone who comes to the meeting to speak, but technically it may be limited to
abutters and interested parties). The
chair should request that speakers identify themselves, and that they refrain
from repeating points already made by others.
The chair should discourage Board members from entering into debate with
members of the audience. The intent is to gather information. In response to comments from the audience
the chair may ask if the applicant wishes to comment. Without effective leadership from the chair this process can
become lengthy and acrimonious.
5.
The
chair should ask members of the Board if they have any questions, either of the
applicant or of staff. If information
is missing or incomplete, it can be identified at this time. If necessary, the hearing or meeting may be
recessed while additional information is provided. It is often helpful to summarize what has been heard at this
point.
6.
When
the Board determines that all available information has been gathered, the
hearing may be closed or the meeting may move on to other matters. If the Board intends to deliberate in open
session it may opt to do so at this time.
If the Board intends to deliberate in a closed session it makes sense to
defer until all other cases to be deliberated have been heard.
·
Deliberations: In deliberations the Board considers the
basic question of whether the application complies with all requirements of the
Town’s Ordinance and/or Regulations.
This determination must be made on the basis of evidence gathered in
open session, including the staff report and all representation made by the
applicant and other sworn witnesses. If the staff report states all
requirements and identifies those with which the application does and does not
comply, that report can be very useful in structuring the deliberations. The Board can be asked if it agrees with the
staff report, and if not, can focus on those items with which members disagree. Note that the question is not whether or not
the board individually or collectively likes the application, but whether it
complies or can be made to comply with the regulations. It is at this point that the suggested
conditions can be considered. Ultimately
the deliberations should craft a decision to either approve or disapprove the
application and include any conditions necessary to ensure compliance with all
requirements.
·
At
this point the Board can follow one of at least two procedures. It can ask staff to draft a final motion for
action at the next meeting, or it can go back into open session vote on a
motion to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application. In this case it may then be wise to have
staff draft a final decision carefully reflecting the motion, for signature by
the Board chair. The latter approach
allows the matter to be concluded without appearing on the agenda of a later
meeting. Most of the towns surveyed
follow this procedure.
The above steps outline a general set of procedures
that the Board can follow to keep its reviews and decisions expeditious. Whatever process the board uses, it is
important that applicants have realistic expectations about how the Boards review
and deliberations will take place. The
procedure may be memorialized in the Boards adopted operating rules of
procedure. Perhaps more important, a
description of the process should be conveyed to every applicant, perhaps as a
part of an application package. Also, whenever staff meets with applicants, the
process should be described until such time as it is generally understood and
accepted.
[1] Information on Hinesburg DRB operations was derived from an interview with the Zoning Administrator, a meeting with all Planning and Zoning staff, observation of a DRB meeting, and review of internal review and evaluation documents.