Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town Review Board approves minutes, defers staff answers and assigns follow-up on checklist and site-plan rules
Summary
At its June 10 meeting, the Town Review Board approved minutes from May meetings, reviewed staff responses that remained largely deferred, and assigned members to clarify an application checklist, research septic-stamp requirements for site plans, and refine glossary definitions for terms such as “can,” “should,” and “must.”
The Town Review Board met on June 10, 2025, approved minutes from its May 9 meeting and May 6 workshop, and reviewed staff responses to questions raised at the May meeting that remain largely deferred.
Board members voted to approve both sets of minutes after motions from Karen Hoffken, seconded by Paul Crumley; the motions were recorded as "All Yes." The roll call noted Karen Hoffken, Paul Crumley and William Betts present; Jonathan Cronkhite was absent.
The board reviewed a response from TMV Staff and determined that most answers to previously posed questions had been deferred; members said they would await fuller staff responses before taking further action. During discussion of the provided application checklist, members raised questions about the data being requested of applicants. Karen Hoffken offered to confer with TMV Staff to clarify the checklist requirements.
Members also discussed document requirements for site plans, comparing accessory-building documentation in nearby municipalities and in Duval and Brevard counties. The board noted that some municipalities require a Health Department stamp on site plans verifying septic-system component locations; William Betts agreed to research why that stamp is required.
The board examined whether a pre-application conference, as referenced in TMV Code 23-18(5), is required before a formal site plan submission and suggested clarifying the Definitions/Glossary by defining terms such as "can," "should," and "must" to reduce ambiguity in application expectations. The board also discussed distinguishing "temporary" from "permanent" for accessory storage buildings, a distinction likely to affect permitting and documentation requirements.
Action items recorded at the meeting included developing a TRB procedures manual (yet to be initiated), upgrading the priority of Betts' research into local shed codes (some research already done), and drafting a definition for "Legacy tree." The meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
The board will await staff responses on deferred questions and reconvene these items when clarification and research are available.
