Development Review Board

Chairman Schoeppach said he would like to first have a discussion of where the board members stand with respect to the draft discussion document, and then deal with the content of the documents. Chairman Schoeppach said he spoke with Member Luckett who expressed agreement with the paper, and would agree to have his name on it provided there was support from the board.

Member Shelton agreed that Option B was the most viable due to the time savings being the same between Option B & C, and you are giving up the citizen’s rights to see the architecture before it goes to the Council.

Vice Chair Wowk agreed with Option B. Vice Chair Wowk said downgrading us to a Design Review Board makes complete sense, and it brings the transparency back.

Member Ottley said the board has two members who are experts in the field of design and architecture and two are very tenured. Over the last year, there were very few times that we changed any recommendations that came forth. Member Ottley said he can not find fault with Option C and is okay with Option B or C.

Bill Adler, OV resident, said there is a time for an organization to do nothing rather than something. If you feel you need to write a letter as a board, I would not recommend the letter that has been drafted. It is argumentative, defensive and negative. I believe in talking to the council directly and registering your point of view with them. Letters that contain criticism of items that are not in your purview will not put them on your side. When writing the letter, you need to avoid criticisms of Options A, B, C or D and avoid references to the lack of transparencies. I would like to see something from the board that commits you to a future direction that will result in performance which registers the board as an invaluable resource.

Chairman Schoeppach said it is unusual for the board to respond to the audience, but pointed out to Mr. Adler that there is a section in that letter that addresses the issue of how the board should move forward. We as a board have an obligation to respond to the options presented to us. Chairman Schoeppach said that is what the letter was trying to say and perhaps we should change the content. Chairman Schoeppach asked if there were specific elements as to the content that members felt needed to be changed.

Vice Chair Wowk said Mr. Adler’s comments were valid, but when we respond to these options with a negative comment, for example, "it won’t work", we need to keep them in there.

Chairman Schoeppach said there are elements that express some criticism and that criticism was wholly his. Chairman Schoeppach asked if any board member would like to have that section revised. Member Shelton and Vice Chair Wowk said the section should be revised.

Chairman Schoeppach asked if they would agree in eliminating the first three paragraphs and keep the reference to the study session when the recommendations were reviewed. All members agreed.

Chairman Schoeppach said he would like to keep the mention of Option B and the rationale in the document. All members agreed.

Chairman Schoeppach said the last section on page 6 makes a commitment by the board to engage in training specifically around the design guidelines and the criteria the board is supposed to be following. Chairman Schoeppach said that training has not happened for quite some time, and we also need to get some direction from Town Council. All board members agreed to leave that in there.

Joe Andrews, OV Chief Civil Deputy Town Attorney, said the board could adopt it with changes that have been discussed and give you the authority to send the letter out without any further change. If you want to communicate with the board members it would require another meeting.

Chairman Schoeppach said he prefers the first option with the understanding that Member Luckett reviews it upon his return on August 16, 2010, before he agrees to have his name on it and would like Mr. Andrews to get with Member Luckett.