MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

FROM:            J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director

                        Gene Poveromo, Development Manager

SUBJECT:      Response to Advisory Board Petition Regarding Advisory Board Review Process and Schedule

DATE:            October 15, 2008

PURPOSE

The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to a petition from the Planning Board and members of other advisory boards regarding ways to improve the advisory board review process and schedule.

BACKGROUND

Currently, major land development applications (Master Land Use Plans, Special Use Permits, and Zoning Atlas Amendments) are reviewed by the Planning Board and other pertinent advisory boards prior to a public hearing before the Council.  Typically, applications are reviewed by four to seven advisory boards.  The advisory board meetings can occur from a few days to several weeks prior to the public hearing.  For a given application, recommendations and comments from the boards are attached to the memorandum to the Town Council as part of the materials to be considered at the hearing.  The current schedule is designed to provide sufficient time for advisory board comment without causing undue delay in the review process prior to a public hearing.

On May 5, 2008, the Council received a petition from Planning Board Chair George Cianciolo and other advisory board members raising some concerns about the current advisory board review and approval process, and requesting consideration of ways to improve it.  Specific observations and concerns included:

• The Planning Board receives applications for review less than one week before its meeting.  It was felt that in some cases, this may not be enough time for individual members’ sufficient review and consideration;
• The applicant may revise the application during or right before the presentation to the Planning Board (or other advisory board), in which case the Planning Board (or other advisory board) is put in a position of making recommendation not on the plans studied prior to the meeting, but on unforeseen revised plans, and often without benefit of staff analysis of the changes;
• The applicant may revise the application before the subsequent advisory board meetings and/or before the public hearing, in which case the Planning Board’s (or other advisory board’s) recommendation may be rendered inapplicable or inappropriate;
• Per provisions in the Land Use Management Ordinance, the Planning Board must provide a recommendation within 35 days of the initial presentation (30 days for rezoning applications).  If the application was revised during or after the initial presentation at the Planning Board meeting, the Board may have a chance to revisit the application to make a well considered recommendation, because this particular board meets twice monthly.  Some advisory boards meet once a month, and are unable to consider revised plans.

In summary, the Planning Board and several other advisory board members are uncomfortable with applicants revising plans between the advisory board meetings and the Town Council review.  The board members offer the following options for resolving these concerns:

o Amend the Land Use Management Ordinance to extend the Planning Board’s 30-day and 35-day time limits for developing a recommendation on an application;

o Increase the time interval between advisory board review and the public hearing; and/or

o In cases when the applicant significantly revises plans during or after advisory board review, extend the deadline for advisory board action.  (Staff note:  this option would in most cases effectively postpone the public hearing date.)

Please see the advisory board petition, attached.

At the May 5^th meeting the Council referred the item to the Town Manager. 

CURRENT REGULATIONS

Regarding the time pressures referred to, for applications for rezonings, Special Use Permits, and Major Subdivisions:  Subsections 4.4.2(d)(2), 4.5.3(e), and 4.6.5(a)(5) of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Planning Board to review a given application and the staff report and to thereafter make a recommendation to the Town Council within 35 days (30 days for rezoning applications).  The Town staff is to forward the recommendation to the Town Council at the next available public hearing scheduled for such applications.

Current regulations do not address plan revisions during the review process segment between advisory board review and public hearing.

DISCUSSION

Typically, after a formal application is made, we meet with the applicant once to discuss staff review comments on the first version of the plans.  After submittal and review of revised plans, we meet again with the applicant to discuss staff comments.  This second meeting usually occurs just days before the first advisory board meeting.  There are limited options if the applicant wishes to revise plans based on the second round of staff feedback

In addition, generally the public hearing is scheduled as soon as possible after the advisory board meetings.  Often this leaves little time for staff to synthesize and integrate advisory board recommendations prior to the deadline for submitting the Town Manager’s report to the Town Council.  Additionally, if an advisory board does not meet in a given month, that board’s recommendation may not be received in time for consideration at the public hearing. 

We believe both these scheduling characteristics contribute to some of the concerns listed in the petition. 

Therefore, we propose the following internal changes to the current process:

o That the staff-applicant meeting on the second set of staff comments occur earlier, prior to the advisory board meetings to allow more time for negotiation towards mutually acceptable plans and stipulations of approval;

o That we allow sufficient time between advisory board meetings and the public hearing to allow for more staff analysis and integration of the advisory board recommendations (this could add 30 days to the process); and

o In cases when applicants propose substantial changes to the plans between advisory board meetings and the public hearing, that we direct the application back to the advisory boards for a second review, so that ultimately the advisory boards and Town Council will be reviewing the same proposals.

We believe these changes will at least partially address some of the concerns listed in the petition. 

In addition, the second change will allow time for receipt of all advisory board recommendations prior to the public hearing so the Town Council has the benefit of all advisory board input at the hearing. 

We believe the above changes, while lengthening the process, has the potential to prevent return trips to the advisory boards, which can also lengthen the process.

NEXT STEPS

The Town Manager, assisted by a consultant, is currently studying the Town’s internal development review process with a view to making internal improvements that could be implemented relatively quickly.  We believe a subsequent step in studying the Town’s development review process could be to re-examine the Land Use Management Ordinance and the role of the advisory boards.  If the Town Council decides to take this next step, the review of the advisory board review process and schedule could be one component of such a study.  The Council could consider whether and how to re-examine the Land Use Management Ordinance and the advisory boards’ review process at that time.

RECOMMENDATION

For the immediate future, we recommend that the staff try the internal changes listed in the above Discussion Section and monitor the revised process for effectiveness.  If the advisory board members’ concerns persist or new concerns arise, we could continue to adjust the process accordingly.  

ATTACHMENTS

1. Petition from Planning Board and other advisory board members (p. 5).