Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission split over whether to keep separate design-advisory board or merge into development-review board
Summary
Trustees advised merging the design-advisory committee with the development-review board to streamline reviews, but commissioners cited legal limits on mandating member qualifications and raised concerns about losing design expertise; options include procedural changes, preferences for applicants, or voluntary subcommittees.
Commissioners debated whether to merge the Village Design Advisory Committee into the Development Review Board or keep a separate advisory panel. Supporters of consolidation said a single-board model could streamline reviews; opponents warned the change could dilute design expertise and that statute and counsel limit the commission's ability to mandate professional qualifications for appointed members.
Several commissioners proposed intermediate solutions: specify preferred qualifications in the board's rules and procedures rather than in the bylaws, recruit members with design experience, or form a working-group subcommittee to concentrate design expertise. One commissioner described statutory intent for a design advisory function as a way to bring subject-matter expertise into DRB decisions, while others urged an operational exercise to test how a merged process might work in practice.
No formal decision was made to merge the bodies. The commission agreed to continue reviewing how design expertise is secured through rules, recruitment and potential pre-application meetings with advisory members.
