Open Letter to SB/PC/CC re: Big Picture Land Use Governance

Selectboard, Town Manager and PC/CC Chairs:

As you know, the Vermont Legislature recently enacted far-reaching changes to the laws governing municipal planning and permitting. On the permitting side, the amended Title 24, Chapter 117
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sections.cfm?Title=24&Chapter=117
makes specific changes procedural rights which our Zoning Administrator is monitoring to ensure we remain in compliance. My purpose in writing this email concerns the planning side of the new Chapter 117. I am forwarding it now in anticipation of your joint meeting with the Planning Commission on May 11th. I regret that I will be out-of-town on the 11th, but hope this email might suffice in my absence.

The new Chapter 117 outlines a structure which places the Planning Commission -- together with the Selectboard as ex officio non-voting members -- at the top of a number of "advisory committees and commissions".

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=24&Chapter=117&Section=04433

The new law gives these advisory bodies a specific role in the pre-application process so the advisory bodies have an opportunity for constructive input at both the pre-app and permit stages. In addition, Chapter 117 clearly envisions a more tiered structure on the planning side, utilizing any number of limited-term and permanent advisory committees to do the detail work on aspects of the Planning Commission's overall responsibilities which need more attention, including capital budgeting, town plan, and by-law revisions.

As I've thought this over and examined the law, I am inclined to believe the new changes seek to shift the Planning Commission's proper role towards oversight of it's advisory committees and coordination of their efforts, rather than attempting to do so much at the PC level. I think a change in roles along these lines offers some real benefits to the town.

First, new PC members wouldn't face such a learning curve since most of the detail work is actually occurring below the PC level. Continuity of efforts wouldn't be disrupted by political turmoil at the PC level because the advisory committees wouldn't necessarily be affected. The overall process would be more inclusive and more participant-friendly because the narrower focus of each advisory committee gives residents more opportunity to focus on their interests and make a difference without having to slog through a lot of unrelated matters to get there. Finally, the division of labor among a variety of smaller groups can bring real expertise to issues, develop more detailed responses, and lead to quicker action because efforts are more focused.

The Planning Commission would authorize and receive advisory committee reports, coordinate results, and keep advisory committees accountable to their stated agendas, but would remain focused on the overall agenda; e.g., a capital budgeting cycle, implementation of approved policies into reg revisions, and a rotating review and readoption of town plan chapters.

I think it's time to begin discussing this idea within the broader context of the Chapter 117 changes which have become effective or will before September 2005. Consequently, I'd like to suggest the Selectboard authorize a Land Use Governance Committee drawing members from the SB, PC, DRB, Conservation Commission, and a couple at-large members to:

1) review and summarize the current structure of land use in town, including the various committees and commissions appointed and convened over the years;

2) review the recent changes to Chapter 117 and consider restructuring existing town committees consistent with its dictates that may better coordinate planning and permitting efforts and clarify lines of authority;

3) consider whether Norwich should elect Planning Commission members (perhaps reducing the overall number of members as well) rather than rely upon Selectboard appointment, redirecting political controversy regarding PC membership to the people rather than to the appointment process;

4) make recommendations for changes and the staffing necessary to implement these changes, along with a general statement of policy summarizing how the restructured PC and advisory committees should operate.

I would recommend that, should such a committee be created, the regional planning commission and ZA should remain responsible for coordinating the implementation of the new requirements under Chapter 117 as they affect the permitting process itself since these rules have significant implications for appeals and legal rights of participants. As always, I'm happy to discuss this further.