CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING WITH ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 7:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1998 TOWN OFFICES 425-3533 Members Present: Chairman Al Moraska Dave Brown Sandy Mayo Ed Melby David Allen Jeff McDonald Peter KuninChairman Jonathan Fisher (ZBA) Wade Weathers Harley Allen Louis Laberge Wallace Smith Selectman Clark Hinsdale, III Planning & Zoning Administrator Charles Burnham Guests Signed In: Kate Bortz, Shelburne Town Planner Charles Russell Jim Sheldon-DeanJoe Perrotto Martha Perkins Jim Donovan Ken Sweetser, Morrisville Town Planner 1. Presentation on Development Review Boards in Vermont: Ken Sweetser, Zoning and Planning Administra tor for Morrisville and Morristown, spoke on his experience with Development Review and its advantages and disadvantages. Mr. Sweetser said he has been in the planning field for about 12 years. In addition to his work for Morrisville and Morristown, he has worked for the town of Johnson. One of the things that used to happen, is that the Planning Commission conducted their hearings on subdivisions, and site plan reviews etc., and they never had time to get down to the business of Planning. Any Planning they were doing was reactionary; it was done as a fix, sometimes after the fact of something coming up with a problem. They were finding that they didn't have much time to really get down to working on the Bylaws. Some of the towns were prodding the State Legislature for 4 or 5 years before this solution finally did "fly" with the option (to be decided by the Town's legislative body) of a Development Review Board. It's a case where you dissolve your Zoning Board of Adjustment and make a new board which is a Development Review Board. It can have 5-to-9 members and is completely different. It can have the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and members from the Planning Commission, and interested people from the community. Morrisville kept 5 of the 7 members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and 2 Planning Commissioners were put on the board because some of the ZBA hadn't much experience in dealing with subdivisions and site plan review. They were the 2nd town that went to Development Review. They were in the middle of a difficult case over a landfill, which had to be resolved before they could completely switch over. Once that case was over, they finished with the conversion to Development Review. The transition period was over a period of 4-to-5 months. The DRB would go down the criteria for Site Plan Review, then send it to the Plan- ning Commission, which held its meeting afterwards. They would look at to see if the procedure was right, and make suggestions. At the same time there were some members of the new Development Review Board that came into the Planning Commission meeting to see how the Subdivision applications were handled. They worked with the Planning Commission and developed an application packet: It consisted of a 2-page application which went along with 4 pages of questions for the applicant. In addition there's a page for sign-offs with the department heads to be sure they can handle it. By doing this, it really sped up the whole process. There's one Board that holds all the hearings. The Planning Commission does their planning. Since they've gone to the DRB they have re-written their 5-Year Plan and have just finished with a new document in which they took the Town, and the Village Subdivision Regulations and merged them into one document. They've been completely rewritten. This has made a tremendous difference for planning. The hearing process uses a plan that is designed to handle everything, so some questions are not applicable and some are. The applicants have everything a week ahead of time, and they have been doing their homework before they come into the meeting. They don't get to the Board unless they're ready to be heard. Sometimes the applicant will say they will get to the last couple of pieces, and don't, but that happens rarely. The board allows 10 or 15 minutes for the presentation and then another 10 minutes for questions, and at that point they issue a "Recess Memo" or recess the hearing to go into deliberative session. They generally have from 4 to 6 hearings in a night, meeting the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of each month. It has gone well for the Board, which is very happy with the way they are reviewing things, and they have complete control on their reviewing. The Planning Commission is happy with now having time to plan. The DRB is now down to one Planning Commission member on the board. This eliminated all the duplication that had occurred with 2 boards. Morrisville has several alternates on their board. When someone can't make the meeting they call in and an alternate comes in. Atty. Steve Stitzel, who is retained by Charlotte, is their attorney as well. He helped them develop the form. The list of 7 alternates is done in order; there is no picking and choosing; the next one on the list is called. They have to have written Minutes, tapes, written warnings, letters etc. The tapes have to be kept "forever." They had tried several types of recorders, but finally went to having a conference microphone which would hear the whole room. The Minutes need to be specific with the name of the person making the motion and who seconded it, and whether it died for lack of a second. It needs to be clear enough that someone can go back in a year and know exactly what transpired. Another part of the criteria is that they issue written decisions. Currently when the Zoning Board of Adjustment and it is appealed in court, that whole decision is thrown out. The applicant's attorney is in court presenting their case. The town doesn't have a lot of say and the judge makes the decisions. But with Review on the record, that changes things. As long as the requirements are met — the warning was done, the minutes are written up, they've taken the readings, issued a written decision — everything was done properly, the court says it was done properly and the decision stands, rather than being thrown out. That's the dif- ference and it stands up in court. There are advantages and disadvantages: the advantage is that the DRB decision stands. In the past, if a ZBA decision was appealed, the applicant might hire an engineer and come up with something different. It might end up being embarassing for the Town. If we have a complicated case or if we have a case that is likely to be appealed, we have a consulting engineer and an attorney on retainer. We find it's much cheaper to work with those people in the beginning. So once the decision is made the applicant has to make their project come close to what the decision was. Planning Commission Chairman Al Moraska verified, that what Mr. Sweetser was saying is that the Development Review Board has a stronger legal position. He said to compare this with the way the Legislature is set up. The Planning Commission writes the [law] Bylaws. The police [DRB] enforce it. Then you have the courts. With the 3 tiers it keeps the ones that write them from interpreting their own regulations. The Development Review Board does that. During the late '70's in Colorado, for example, the body that wrote regulations was not allowed to hear the cases. Peter Kunin asked how many written decisions have to be written each month, in Mr. Sweetser's town. He said he believes they do 5 or 6, but some decisions have standard wording in them. Usually members will call in if they cannot be there, in order to allow the chairperson to call alternates (in order, so the same alternate is not called twice in a row). The chairperson may not call unless it appears there will not be a quorum. The board is diverse, yet there is much expertise. To Ed Melby's questions, Ken said they have 7 members, and they meet quarterly in a joint session with their Selectboard and the Planning Commission. In the last quarterly meeting they also invited the Trustees. The Develop- ment Review Board in his town can go to any department or agency for input. For example recently there was a new bar coming to town. No one was really excited about it, but with cooperation the bar owners agreed to every condition imposed on them. They supplied security, and as it appeared there were no problems and it turned out to be quieter than feared, they were eventually allowed to have less of a police presence. They have approximately 250 applications per year. There are some times in the year that there are no applica- tions and they don't have to have a meeting. Before DRB the Planning Commission was reacting, now it is proactive. Kate Bortz questioned whether people were receptive to the idea at first. Ken said Attorney Steve Stitzel had come to speak about the process before the town decided on it. Actually, they were ready to start it for several months before it could happen, but they had to clear up the landfill process first. Applicants have expressed approval of the new procedures because they only have to go before one board and have one site walk instead of two. Charlie Burnham asked if there are concerns of neighbors, or opposition from neighbors. Ken said sometimes there is opposition when they don't even expect there will be opposition. But all the neighbors are given ample notice of applications, and they are allowed to speak. In most cases they ask questions and people are civil, and generally most approve of the way the process is done. Resident Martha Perkins asked about a Milton, which has recently gone to having DRB. She wanted to know if they have to go back to the Planning Commission because they may not know what the issues to be considered, are. Ken answered that in Morrisville's case, they still have one member from the Planning Commission and they can go back over old records. They meet regularly. They copy all of the departments and boards with their Minutes. Any letter or decision going out of his office gets copied to the Chair of the other departments. It puts a lot on the Chair of the Planning Commission but it hasn't been a problem for them. At times persons on Development Review and persons on the Planning Commission have switched positions in order to avoid burnout. There appears to be more trust and rapport between the boards now. Planning Commission went to the Selectboard recently, to ask permission to meet 3 times per month instead of twice. They meet from 7 to 9 p.m. on the first 3 Tuesdays of the month. The Planning Commission meetings now have summarized Minutes rather than leaning towards verbatim Min- utes. On the other hand, Development Review has to have much more detailed Minutes. Members must all have a minimum of two education days per year, although most have gone to at least 4 days of educational seminars per year. They feel an educated board makes less mistakes. Morrisville's consultant budget is $2,500, but he has not exceeded $2,000. Jeff McDonald asked if extra fees are passed on to the applicant. Ken said this is already specified: if they have to hire a specialist the applicant must pay for it. Sandy Mayo asked about cases where an applicant's procedure is continued to another meeting. Since the plans are posted 3 weeks in advance, how are these handled? Ken said if it's because documents are not included or such that this should not have happened, they have to wait until those 3 meetings to be heard a second time. But if it is something minor, that the applicant just needs to check on something and get back, then it can come to the first item on the next meeting's agenda. The way they continue the hearing, is they issue a "Recess Memo" requiring specific information in order to make a decision. It is one a one-page memo. Most members show up a half-hour before the meeting to familiarize themselves with the paperwork. They try to conduct site walks before the meeting, probably 5:00 p.m., then they have something to eat (sometimes) and have their meeting. * * * * * * * * * At this point the Zoning Board of Adjustment had to break for their own Warned Hearing. * * * * * * * * * Kate Bortz asked if there were any concerns about making this decision to go with DRB. Ken said legal costs were the only real worry, but he uses them only when absolutely necessary. The Development Review Board would do the appeals. They may have more commercial applications because of Morrisville's centralized location. Kate said that in Shelburne, they helped solve their planning problems by holding only one meeting per month for applicants, and the other meeting is saved for work on the Bylaws. People seem to be getting used to that. Ken said in Morrisville's case, the DRB reduced duplication. Typically there is duplication of hearings and efforts with commercial applications. The better educated the Board is, the easier. If it is not an active town, Development Review might not be the way to go. But it allows for open communication. Peter Kunin commented that "ASAP" (as soon as possible) is the goal of the developers. With two boards it gives the citizenry more time to pay attention to what is being proposed. Ken said, however, that even for regular permits, a letter goes out to all adjacent property owners. With good P.R. work, the public knows. Al Moraska asked Kate Bortz how she feels a Development Review Board would work in Charlotte. Kate said her feeling is they should look at what the real issue is, that of not being able to plan, or work on the Bylaws. Try for one meeting per month for applicants and one meeting for planning before jumping to a Development Review Board. The key is to stay connected with what's working and what's not working. But rotation, she said, is a good idea. She suggests they make a list of the issues and look at what is needed before choosing DRB over alternatives. Dave Brown asked what the percentage is (for Morrisville), between residential and commercial applications. Ken said Morrisville is in a hub, therefore most of their applications are commercial; they only have 12-to-15 applica- tions per year for subdivisions. For subdivisions of 5 lots or more, a dry hydrant and a fire pond are required. Housing projects must have handicap access. A new applicant has to have fire and safety issues signed off on his application. Ken summarized with a suggestion that people could attend one of his meetings. All meetings are open to the public, their Development Review Board meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of every month, and their Planning Commission meets on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Tuesdays of every month. His E-Mail is kj.sweetser@juno.com. Submitted by Nancy Lane APPROVED BY THE CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMISSION ON Chairman