HINESBURG DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

MINUTES OF MEETING DECEMBER 07, 2004

Approved 12/21/04

 

 

Members Present:  Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Howdy Russell, Robert Gauthier, Clint Emmons, and Greg Waples.  Also Peter Erb, Zoning Administrator.

Member Absent:  Ted Bloomhardt.

Members of the Audience:  Lynn Gardner and Rob Bast, Select Board members, Jeanne Wilson, Town Administrator and Dominic Cloud from the League of Cities and Towns.  Also Wayne Bissonette, Tom Lyman, John Lyman, David Lyman, Barbara Forrest, Larned Ketcham, Dick Francis, Joyce Devoid, Raymond Ayer, Sam Evanson, Karla Munson, and George Bedard.

HINESBURG DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

MINUTES OF MEETING DECEMBER 07, 2004

Approved 12/21/04

 

 

Members Present:  Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Howdy Russell, Robert Gauthier, Clint Emmons, and Greg Waples.  Also Peter Erb, Zoning Administrator.

Member Absent:  Ted Bloomhardt.

Members of the Audience:  Lynn Gardner and Rob Bast, Select Board members, Jeanne Wilson, Town Administrator and Dominic Cloud from the League of Cities and Towns.  Also Wayne Bissonette, Tom Lyman, John Lyman, David Lyman, Barbara Forrest, Larned Ketcham, Dick Francis, Joyce Devoid, Raymond Ayer, Sam Evanson, Karla Munson, and George Bedard.

 

 

This DRB meeting was a work-session meeting with Mike Munson to discuss the progress of the board, which has been in existence a couple of years.  Mike had contacted DRB’s in 9 other area towns and villages to poll their procedures, work load, staff assistance, etc.  He went through the 4 main areas of his report, answered questions from the Board members, and discussed some of the following points (see attached revised report):

 

  1. Background   Most of these towns reviewed 4 ˝ items a night, their meetings last 3 hours and are taped.

 

  1. Staffing   In general the Towns’ Zoning Administrators staff the DRB’s with some help from other planning and zoning staff.  The staff generally met with applicants prior to DRB meetings and a memo was prepared and submitted to Board members prior to the meeting.  In nine of the 10 towns, the staff also prepared final decisions.  Applications were reviewed and all the necessary information submitted prior to being scheduled for DRB review.

 

  1. Procedures   None of the towns have adopted the Municipal Administrative Procedures Act with “on the record” reviews as part of their procedures.  8 of the 10 towns swear in witnesses at their meetings.  Notice of the meetings is sent to abutters but the staff report only if specifically requested in advance.  Staff generally participates in open meetings and hearings however, they generally do not participate in DRB discussions about applications.  8 of the 10  DRB’s use deliberative session to make decisions and generally make those decisions, with draft conditions of approval provided by staff, at that meeting.

 

  1. Output and Results 

     

    This DRB meeting was a work-session meeting with Mike Munson to discuss the progress of the board, which has been in existence a couple of years.  Mike had contacted DRB’s in 9 other area towns and villages to poll their procedures, work load, staff assistance, etc.  He went through the 4 main areas of his report, answered questions from the Board members, and discussed some of the following points (see attached revised report):

     

    1. Background   Most of these towns reviewed 4 ˝ items a night, their meetings last 3 hours and are taped.

     

    1. Staffing   In general the Towns’ Zoning Administrators staff the DRB’s with some help from other planning and zoning staff.  The staff generally met with applicants prior to DRB meetings and a memo was prepared and submitted to Board members prior to the meeting.  In nine of the 10 towns, the staff also prepared final decisions.  Applications were reviewed and all the necessary information submitted prior to being scheduled for DRB review.

     

    1. Procedures   None of the towns have adopted the Municipal Administrative Procedures Act with “on the record” reviews as part of their procedures.  8 of the 10 towns swear in witnesses at their meetings.  Notice of the meetings is sent to abutters but the staff report only if specifically requested in advance.  Staff generally participates in open meetings and hearings however, they generally do not participate in DRB discussions about applications.  8 of the 10  DRB’s use deliberative session to make decisions and generally make those decisions, with draft conditions of approval provided by staff, at that meeting.

     

    1. Output and Results   Most DRB’s had not had negative comments from applicants.  Generally it takes other boards an average of 1.4 meeting for a site plan approval, 1.2 meetings for sketch plan, 1.3 for preliminary and an average of 2.6 months for a minor subdivision, and about 6.3 for a major one.

     

     

     

     

    Mike then gave background on Hinesburg’s Board and how our board could perhaps use this survey information:

     

    1. Background   Generally there are 4 items on the agenda and the meetings generally last about 4 hours.  These meetings are not recorded and the Board does use deliberative sessions.  Staff memos are distributed to the Board members and applicants on the Thursday prior to Tuesday meeting.  The meetings are generally run informally and witnesses are not sworn in.    Decisions are acted upon at a subsequent meeting once staff has prepared draft conditions. 

     

    1. Staffing   Although three staff members (Alex Weinhagen, Peter Erb and Holly Russell) work on DRB applications their time only adds up to one full time person assisting the Board.  One person is not responsible for ensuring that all the necessary work is completed or consistent.  Although Alex prepares memos for applications, he does not attend meetings.  The staff should ensure that the Town’s Regulations are fully satisfied and checklists could help this process.  It would be good to have one staff member responsible for ensuring that the process is complete and timely.

     

    1. Procedures   To help make meetings more effective and efficient, Mike suggested some changes suchan>   Most DRB’s had not had negative comments from applicants.  Generally it takes other boards an average of 1.4 meeting for a site plan approval, 1.2 meetings for sketch plan, 1.3 for preliminary and an average of 2.6 months for a minor subdivision, and about 6.3 for a major one.

     

     

     

     

    Mike then gave background on Hinesburg’s Board and how our board could perhaps use this survey information:

     

    1. Background   Generally there are 4 items on the agenda and the meetings generally last about 4 hours.  These meetings are not recorded and the Board does use deliberative sessions.  Staff memos are distributed to the Board members and applicants on the Thursday prior to Tuesday meeting.  The meetings are generally run informally and witnesses are not sworn in.    Decisions are acted upon at a subsequent meeting once staff has prepared draft conditions. 

     

    1. Staffing   Although three staff members (Alex Weinhagen, Peter Erb and Holly Russell) work on DRB applications their time only adds up to one full time person assisting the Board.  One person is not responsible for ensuring that all the necessary work is completed or consistent.  Although Alex prepares memos for applications, he does not attend meetings.  The staff should ensure that the Town’s Regulations are fully satisfied and checklists could help this process.  It would be good to have one staff member responsible for ensuring that the process is complete and timely.

     

    1. Procedures   To help make meetings more effective and efficient, Mike suggested some changes such as people only speak when recognized by the chair, staff reports should be made part of the minutes, and have a formal sequence of taking information and asking questions. It is important to determine if the application meets the Town’s regulations and perhaps a decision be made at the meeting where the project is reviewed.  If an application does not meet these regulations, then the project should be denied.  “It is important that applicants have realistic expectations about how the Board’s reviews and deliberations will take place.”

     

    1. Output and Results   There should be a list of application requirements to ensure that all the necessary information has been submitted in order for the Board to make a decision.  The Town’s regulations should be specific in what is required and then reflected in the checklists.  If the applicants have not met requirements from the regulations, then suggestions could be made by the staff to help them do so.  Hinesburg may take a little longer than some towns to review and render decision on applications.  Making decision at meetings with staff draft conditions, may speed up this process.

     

     

    Barbara Forest then questioned whether this meeting had been properly warned and it was explained that as this was not a warned public hearing notification only had to be posted in 2 places, 24 hours prior to the meeting.  Larry Ketcham also stated that it is important that this Board work closely with the Planning Commission as they rewrite the various town regulations and bylaws.

     

    The Board then discussed this report amongst themselves concluded some of the following:

    • Meetings should be recorded but that witnesses generally did not need to be sworn in.
    • Checklists should be given to applicants to ensure that all the necessary information is submitted or addressed prior to scheduling.
    • A template of required items to be addressed from the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations should be used when staff is preparing the memo.
    • The DRB will suggest to the Select Board that an additional 20 hours be allotted for assistance to the Board, which would include 4 hours a week for the recording secretary.
    • The meeting sequence and the Board’s procedures should be given to applicants and maybe included in the letter to adjacent landowners.
    • There was also discussion of whether the members are comfortable making decisions at the same meeting where a project is reviewed.  
      •   If an application does not meet these regulations, then the project should be denied.  “It is important that applicants have realistic expectations about how the Board’s reviews and deliberations will take place.”

 

  1. Output and Results   There should be a list of application requirements to ensure that all the necessary information has been submitted in order for the Board to make a decision.  The Town’s regulations should be specific in what is required and then reflected in the checklists.  If the applicants have not met requirements from the regulations, then suggestions could be made by the staff to help them do so.  Hinesburg may take a little longer than some towns to review and render decision on applications.  Making decision at meetings with staff draft conditions, may speed up this process.

 

 

Barbara Forest then questioned whether this meeting had been properly warned and it was explained that as this was not a warned public hearing notification only had to be posted in 2 places, 24 hours prior to the meeting.  Larry Ketcham also stated that it is important that this Board work closely with the Planning Commission as they rewrite the various town regulations and bylaws.

 

The Board then discussed this report amongst themselves concluded some of the following:

 

 

The Board then acted upon the following items:

 

Howdy then commented that he and George had been the only Board members along with Peter Erb that attended the Ayer site visit on Sat. morning.  He felt that the Board needs to have a policy on these site visits for subdivisions.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

 

 

 

 

The Board then acted upon the following items:

 

Howdy then commented that he and George had been the only Board members along with Peter Erb that attended the Ayer site visit on Sat. morning.  He felt that the Board needs to have a policy on these site visits for subdivisions.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Holly Russell

Recording Secretary

>

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Holly Russell

Recording Secretary