Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Process Clarity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks staff to clarify expedited-review criteria and produce a flowchart
Summary
Members asked staff to reorganize the design-review section, add objective guardrails for expedited review and produce a visual flowchart showing when the administrative officer may use expedited review versus when projects must go to the development review board.
The planner told the commission they would reorder the design-review section and add visuals to clarify process flow. As the planner explained: "I originally drafted the expedited review so that it could only be used if there were no other approval processes required... If you want it stricter, that would be my suggestion." The planner also noted that expedited-review approvals would remain appealable.
Commissioners asked for clear objective criteria so the administrative officer (AO) can reliably determine eligibility and recommended that expedited-review packets still be visible to the development review board as a backstop. Members discussed whether “substantial alterations” should remain eligible for expedited review or be reserved for the full board; staff said objective checklists (pages cited in the draft) will determine eligibility and that controversial cases can be deferred to the VDRB.
The commission asked staff to provide a reorganized section, objective checklists, and a flowchart showing how projects move through exemption, expedited review, and full board review. The planner agreed to return with those materials.
