PURPOSE:

This report recommends that the City Council approve a Zone Text Amendment that would reorganize Article 19 of Chapter 31 of the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC).  Article 19 provides regulations and procedures for processing planning project applications.  The proposed ordinance would establish standardized process types under which all applications would be processed rather than having separate process requirements for each individual application type.

BACKGROUND:

Article 19 of Chapter 31 of the BMC prescribes procedures for City consideration of various types of planning applications including Development Review (DR), Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), Variances, and other planning permits and entitlements.  As currently structured, each type of planning application has its own processing requirements, including those pertaining to hearings, noticing, and decision making.  Aside from the planning applications discussed in Article 19, other sections of Chapter 31 establish the processing requirements for other types of applications.  Processing requirements for tract and parcel maps are specified in Chapter 27 of the BMC.

Proposed Ordinance

In the current Code, many of the requirements for different application types are duplicative.  In other cases, requirements that are applicable only to certain application types could be applied uniformly to all applications.  The proposed ordinance seeks to standardize the process for all types of planning applications by establishing five application processes.  All planning applications would be processed pursuant to one of the five processes.  The general procedures in place now for individual application types would not change, but would be grouped into the five process categories.  The processes are summarized in the following table, along with examples of the types of applications that would fall under them:

Each of the five application processes would have requirements that would apply in the same manner to all applications falling under that process.  All public noticing and hearing requirements would also be standardized among the five process types.  All of the processing requirements would be contained within Article 19, along with a listing of the various application types.  Rather than each application type specifying the complete processing requirements, it would simply refer to the appropriate application process, and all procedures would be contained within that process type.  Each individual application type would include only those requirements specific to that application, including purpose, applicability, and required findings or other requisites for approval.

The proposed ordinance is based upon the Municipal Code for the City of San Diego.  San Diego utilizes five planning application process types similar to those proposed.  San Diego�s five processes were modified to fit with Burbank�s existing application types and processes, but the concept is the same.

For the proposed ordinance, Article 19 has been rewritten in its entirety, as shown in Exhibit A.  The proposed text incorporates the revisions to the appeal process and the DR process adopted by the City Council in August 2006.  The proposed ordinance would include changes to various other sections within Chapter 31 and Chapter 27 as shown in Exhibits B and C, respectively.  The changes include updating cross-references to Article 19 and replacing processing requirements for individual permits with references to the standardized requirements in Article 19.  The majority of changes deal with the organization and language of the Code, and would not result in any substantive changes to the process or other requirements.  Those changes that would result in modifications to the application process or other requirements are discussed in detail in the Analysis section below.

Reasons for Proposed Ordinance

As noted above, the structure of the current Code results in redundancy as the same requirements are repeated for multiple applications.  As part of staff�s ongoing effort to make the Zoning Ordinance more user friendly, staff has sought to eliminate redundancy and make the Code text as straightforward as possible.

In other cases, however, the requirements differ among the application types when consistency would be desired.  Some of the differences among the application types recently came to light, such as the appeals process for DR applications being different from other application types.  In August 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3701 at the recommendation of the Planning Board to create a single appeals process for all planning applications.  The ordinance created a uniform process for filing and considering appeals of decisions of the Community Development Director and the Planning Board.  To continue with this effort of creating uniformity among the application types, the proposed ordinance seeks to standardize all aspects of the application process.

Standardizing application processes would also simplify the process of adding new types of applications.  Over the past year, several new planning permit applications have been created, including new discretionary permits that were adopted as part of the single family development standards in 2005, and the fence exception permits that were approved as part of the interim fence and wall standards in 2006.  Rather than specifying the processing requirements for each individual application type, a standardized application process would allow for new application types to be easily added to the Code.  New applications would utilize one of the application processes and would be processed pursuant to familiar existing procedures.

Finally, the proposed use of standardized application processes is desired in conjunction with the use of a new project tracking software system that has been implemented for the Planning and Transportation Division.  The Enterprise Permitting and Licensing System, or ePALS, is a new software system that is now being used to track active planning project applications and to maintain a record of approved applications by address.  The system has greatly enhanced the Planning and Transportation Division�s ability to manage project cases and to track previously approved cases for compliance.  Staff desires to have a means of placing projects into broader categories for workload management and reporting purposes because of the manner in which projects are categorized and filed in the software system.  The proposed ordinance would serve this purpose through its use of the five process types.

ANALYSIS:

As noted above, most of the proposed changes involve organization and language modifications that would not result in practical changes to the manner in which applications are processed.  However, some substantive changes are proposed, as discussed below.  The changes have been categorized according to application type and the type of change.  The rationale for each change is discussed with the description of the change.

General changes applicable to multiple application types

• Existing Code requires that during a public hearing, persons in favor of the matter under consideration be heard before persons opposed to the matter (Section 31-1903).  This requirement has not been followed in practice for many years.  The proposed ordinance would remove this requirement and allow members of the public to speak in any order, as is now done in practice.

• Existing Code reiterates many requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the requirements for various application types, including stating that a project that may have a significant environmental impact cannot be approved unless an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared.  Such requirements are entirely duplicative of the State CEQA Guidelines and are not necessary to repeat in the Municipal Code.  In an effort to eliminate redundant and unnecessary language from the Zoning Ordinance, all requirements that are duplicative of CEQA requirements would be removed.  The City is required to comply with the State CEQA Guidelines regardless of whether the requirements are duplicated in a local ordinance.

• Some application types specify timelines within which certain actions must be taken, including acting to approve or deny an application.  The state Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA both specify timelines within which action must be taken regarding applications for non-legislative actions.  Consistent with the above statements regarding duplication of CEQA requirements, staff believes that it is unnecessary to specify timelines in the BMC.  Staff recommends against specifying timelines that are more restrictive than those already provided under state law.  As recommended by the Planning Board, the proposed Code language includes a reference to the timelines that are applicable under state law to make applicants aware of the timelines.  The exception to this general recommendation to not include specific timelines is with regard with Second Dwelling Unit Permit applications.  Due to the separation requirement between Second Dwelling Units and the potential competition for permits, the processing timelines and application deadlines adopted as part of the Second Dwelling Unit ordinance are not proposed to change.

When the City Council considered the ordinance regarding the appeals process on July 25, 2006, the Council directed staff to return at a later date with an ordinance to provide a 75-day timeline within which an appeal of a Director or Planning Board decision must be considered by the Planning Board or City Council, respectively.  This timeline was originally suggested by the Planning Board in an effort to ensure that appeals were considered in a timely manner.  Although staff recommended against such a requirement, the City Council was supportive of the timeline.  As such, the 75-day time limit is included in the proposed ordinance.  The proposed ordinance provides, however, that the 75-day timeline is waived if the applicant fails to provide any required information or plans far enough in advance of the appeal hearing.

• During the second reading of the appeals ordinance on August 8, 2006, the City Council directed staff to return at a later date with an ordinance that would provide the City Council with authority to require the Planning Board to review a decision of the Community Development Director in lieu of an appeal being filed.  The City Council currently has the authority to review decisions of the Planning Board but does not have the authority to require the Planning Board to review a Director�s decision.  The proposed ordinance incorporates the City Council�s direction and provides this additional authority.

• Existing Code requires that all Planning Board and City Council ordinances be prepared by the City Attorney�s office (Section 31-1905).  In practice, the Planning staff prepares all Planning Board resolutions in an effort to reduce the workload of the City Attorney�s office, and has done so for many years.  This requirement has been removed in the proposed ordinance to reflect current practice.

• Existing Code does not have a specified process for handling cases where different application types are required for a single project with different decision makers.  For example, a project requiring a CUP and DR has two different types of applications that would separately require decisions by the Planning Board and the Community Development Director.  In practice, the highest level of authority to approve one application would approve all related applications.  In this example, the Planning Board would approve the DR application in addition to the CUP.  The proposed ordinance explicitly codifies this process so that there is no ambiguity about how applications are to be acted upon.

Application-specific requirements to be applied to all application types

• The procedures for DR applications include much more detail than other application types, including pre-application conferences, the process for deeming an application complete, and other such details that are not included for other application types (Section 31-1909).  These aspects of the DR process would be useful for all application types, and the proposed ordinance would expand these procedural requirements to apply to all types of planning applications.  The requirements for community meetings and sign posting for noticing purposes would continue to be required for DR applications only.

• The procedures for DR provide that a DR approval expires one year after the approval date if a building permit application is not filed within that one year period.  The procedures for CUPs and Variances provide that a CUP or Variance approval expires if not used within the time limits specified in the approval or within 180 days if no time is specified.  To be consistent with the DR timeline, CUP and Variance approvals have for many years specified a one-year period for expiration.  Further, the approvals typically provide that an applicant may request an extension of the expiration date no less than 30 days prior to the expiration.  The proposed ordinance would establish a one-year period before expiration for all types of planning permits and entitlements, except in certain situations where other timelines are already in place, such as for Second Dwelling Unit Permits.  The Code would further specify that an applicant could submit a written request to extend an expiration date no less than 60 days prior to the expiration date.  The decision about whether to grant the extension would be made by the decision maker that approved the permit or entitlement.  This 60-day time period would ensure that there is adequate time for the extension to be considered by the appropriate decision maker.

• The procedures for CUP and Variance applications include provisions for the revocation, expiration, and termination of the entitlements, and reapplication in the event applications are denied.  Such processes would be useful for all application types, and the proposed ordinance would expand these procedural requirements to apply to all applications, except in cases where other requirements are already in place, such as with Planned Development (PD) projects.  The minimum noticing period for revocation of a permit or entitlement is proposed to increase from the current 20 days to 30 days to ensure that ample notice is provided to a property owner of the City�s intent to revoke a permit or entitlement.

• The existing DR and CUP requirements discuss specific allowances for the types of conditions of approval that may be imposed on an application (Sections 31-1912(f) and 31-1937).  Since conditions of approval may be imposed upon any project approval, the proposed ordinance expands the requirement to apply to all application types.

• The Media District currently has additional noticing requirements for projects of 25,000 square feet or greater (Section 31-2101).  The existing Code specifies that the additional noticing is required �in addition to the 1,000-foot radius already required.�  This language makes it unclear as to the type of applications to which the noticing requirement is intended to apply, since until recently DR applications required only a 300-foot noticing radius.  The proposed ordinance would clarify that the additional noticing requirement applies to all projects of 25,000 square feet or greater regardless of application type and would clarify that it applies only to 25,000 square feet or more of new construction.  This requirement would also be moved from the Media District section of the Code to Article 19 where all other public noticing requirements are located, so that all notice requirements are in one location.

• The existing PD regulations include a basic requirement for making substantial conformance determinations when minor changes to a project are proposed following approval by the City Council.  The existing Code also contains a separate process for Planning Board review of minor changes to site plans for previously approved CUPs.  The proposed ordinance would combine and expand upon both of these processes to apply to all application types since changes to a project after approval are an issue that arises regularly with all types of projects and not just PDs or CUPs.

As staff has discussed previously with the Planning Board and City Council, the existing substantial conformance provisions in the Code are minimal and in need of modification.  Staff had intended to return to the Planning Board and City Council in the near future with a separate ordinance to create a more formalized substantial conformance process.  Instead, staff has incorporated a proposed substantial conformance process into the proposed ordinance (staff notes that this portion of the ordinance has been modified since the Planning Board reviewed the proposed ordinance).  As proposed by staff, the substantial conformance process for all types of applications would work as follows:

1)      The Community Development Director would review any proposed change to a project following project approval.  If the change were substantially consistent with the approved application and plans and consistent with the conditions of approval, the change would be approved by the Director.

2)      If the change was different from the approved application and plans but still consistent with the conditions of approval and the intent of the approved application, the matter would be forwarded to the Planning Board or City Council (depending upon which body approved the project) for consideration.  If the Director approved the original application, the Director could make the determination regarding the change, or elect to forward the matter to the Planning Board for its consideration.

3)      If the Director, Planning Board, or City Council determined that the proposed change was not consistent with the conditions of approval or the intent of the application approval, the applicant would have to apply to amend the permit or entitlement.

Staff is proposing that no public hearings or notice be required by default for projects under this process.  This is because the majority of projects undergo some minor changes between the time they are approved and the time they are constructed or operated due to issues that arise before and during the plan check process.  Staff believes that requiring public notice or a public hearing for most projects would be unnecessary due to the minor nature of most changes, and the fact that Planning Board or City Council review would still be required for all except the most minimal changes.

Nonetheless, the proposed ordinance would provide that any project could, through its conditions of approval, have a unique substantial conformance review process, which may include public notice and a public hearing, as appropriate for that particular project.  This would provide the Planning Board and the City Council with an opportunity to ensure that large or controversial projects that are of particular interest to the surrounding neighborhood or the community would have to go through a public process if any changes were proposed, even if such changes were minor.  This approach of creating a specialized substantial conformance process has been used in the past on several PD projects.  The proposed ordinance would explicitly allow for this to be used on any project through the conditions of approval.

Changes to application-specific requirements

• Zoning Clearance

• The proposed ordinance creates a new type of application called a �Zoning Clearance.�  A Zoning Clearance is simply a review by the Planning and Transportation Division of an application for a building permit, business license, business tax registration, or other such application to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.  Such applications are already subject to Planning review and approval.  Zoning Clearance is being proposed as a formal type of zoning application to allow for improved project tracking through the ePALS software system discussed above and to provide a formalized process for Planning approval of permit types other than those established by the Zoning Ordinance.

• Permit to Alter or Remove a Historic Site

• This permit type is not frequently utilized.  The proposed ordinance would move the requirements for this permit out of the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Section 31-929) and into Article 19 with other permit processing requirements.  The proposed ordinance creates a more formalized process for this permit type and establishes an appeal procedure consistent with other application types, in lieu of automatic forwarding to the City Council upon denial as provided in the existing Code.

• Development Review

• The existing DR process includes a provision for appealing to the City Planner a decision to deny a building permit for a project that is exempt from DR (Section 31-1915).  The existing Code and the proposed ordinance include other procedures for appealing to the Permit Appeals Panel a decision regarding a building permit.  Staff believes that the process for appealing to the City Planner is duplicative of other existing processes and is not necessary.  The proposed ordinance does not include the provision for appealing to the City Planner, and provides that appeals on building permits are considered only by the Permit Appeals Panel.

• Conditional Use Permit

• The existing Code includes six findings required for approval of a CUP.  Although the BMC states elsewhere that a CUP cannot be approved unless it complies with the General Plan, none of the six findings address that issue.  The sixth finding deals with the conditions of approval placed upon the approval of the application.  Under the proposed ordinance, the ability to place conditions on a project approval and the nature of those conditions will be explicitly addressed.  Therefore, staff believes that it is no longer necessary to have a finding that deals with conditions of approval.  The proposed ordinance replaces that finding with a new finding that addresses the consistency of the proposed project with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

• Variance

• The existing Code provides separate provisions for Variances that were granted prior to the effective date of the previous Variance ordinance and for Variances granted for a temporary period (Section 31-1930).  Such requirements are no longer applicable or necessary, and the proposed ordinance does not include them.

• Sign Variances are currently treated the same as other Variances but with separate findings.  To recognize the unique nature of the Sign Variance distinct from a traditional Variance, the proposed ordinance treats Sign Variances as a separate type of permit application.  This would not have any practical effect on the manner in which Variance or Sign Variance applications are processed.

• Planned Residential Development

• Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) are similar in concept to PDs in that they allow for deviations from otherwise applicable development standards for unique projects, but they apply only to residential development projects.  Unlike PDs, which are a type of project application and act as the zoning for a property once approved, PRDs are classified as uses under the existing Code and are approved through the CUP process.  No PRDs have been applied for in Burbank for many years.  The proposed ordinance would treat PRDs as a type of project application with its own findings for approval, rather than as a use subject to approval with a CUP.  Staff believes that the proposed approach is a better means of recognizing the intended purpose and function of PRDs as an entitlement vehicle rather than as a type of use.

• Planned Development

• The existing Code contains detailed requirements for the contents of a PD application, referred to in the Code as a �project report.�  In practice, many of the items supposed to be included in a project report have not been required for PD applications.  The Director is authorized by the Code to maintain a list of required items for submittal of all types of project applications.  Staff believes that a list maintained by the Director separate from the Code is a better approach than trying to exhaustively list all application requirements in the Code itself since application requirements may evolve over time.  As such, the project report provisions are not included in the proposed ordinance.

• Development Agreement

• The proposed ordinance clarifies that Development Agreements (DAs) cannot be used in lieu of other zoning permits and entitlements, and can be used only for the purpose of implementing or providing vested rights to the approvals granted through other permits or entitlements.  Due to ambiguous language in the existing Code, it may be interpreted that DAs may be used in lieu of other zoning permits, but that is not the intended use of DAs.  A DA in absence of another permit or entitlement application would be for the purpose of providing vested rights to existing zoning provisions.

• Specific Plan

• Specific Plans are a vehicle for implementing the General Plan and can provide more detailed development policies for a specific site or geographic area.  Specific Plans may also be used to supplement or replace the zoning for a particular area.  Although authorized under state law, the existing Code does not contain any provisions for the creation of a Specific Plan.  The Media District Specific Plan and the Burbank Center Plan were both adopted through the traditional General Plan and zoning processes, rather than through the Specific Plan process specified under state law.  Staff believes that the type of Specific Plan authorized under state law may be an appropriate vehicle for implementing the updated Land Use Element of the General Plan in certain areas of the City, and as such has included a process for adopting Specific Plans in the proposed ordinance.

• Zone Text Amendment

• The existing procedural requirements for processing a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) provide that some types of ZTAs must be considered by both the Planning Board and City Council, while other types of Amendments must be considered only by the Council (Sections 31-1987 and 31-1988).  These requirements have led to confusion about which process is required by the Code, most recently with the Council�s adoption of the ordinance to change the DR process.  The proposed ordinance would clarify that Planning Board review is required prior to City Council action for all ZTAs involving development or use standards.  Amendments not involving a development standard or use regulation and dealing only with a procedural matter or application processing requirement could be approved by the City Council without Planning Board review if the Council found that the amendment was of an urgent nature, or that the amendment set or directly implemented a City Council policy, and that Planning Board review was therefore not needed.  This would not prevent the City Council from adopting an Interim Development Control Ordinance (IDCO) to modify development or use standards for an interim period pursuant to state law (Government Code Section 65858).

• The existing Code provides that an application fee for a ZTA is refunded to the applicant if the City Council approves the ZTA, or if the Planning Board recommends denial of the amendment (Section 31-1990).  Application fees are not refunded for any other type of planning application, and staff believes that it would not be appropriate to refund fees for a single type of application.  City time and resources are nonetheless required to process the application.  This provision is not included in the proposed ordinance.

• Zone Map Amendment

• The existing Code allows the City to withhold building permits for projects that would conflict with the proposed zoning in an area proposed to be down zoned to an R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone, but where such zoning has not yet been approved (Section 31-1962).  If the Council ever wished to stop projects that may be inconsistent with anticipated zoning, an IDCO would be the proper means to do so.  The existing Code provision is outdated and is not, in staff�s opinion, an appropriate means of regulating development.  It is not included in the proposed ordinance.

• Another provision of the existing Code allows the Planning Board to consider a CUP, Variance, or more restrictive zoning in lieu of a proposed Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) (Section 31-1968).  Staff believes that this provision is not practical and if ever used in practice, could result in confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the public as to what action is being considered by the Planning Board.  It is not included in the proposed ordinance.

• The existing Code provides that any land that is annexed to the City or �becomes unzoned� is automatically zoned R-1 until the proper zoning can be determined (Section 31-1995).  Although it is highly unlikely that the City will annex any additional land, the zoning of such land would be determined and approved in conjunction with the approval of the annexation, and there would be no need for a default R-1 zone designation.  The proposed ordinance does not include this provision.

• The existing Code contains a provision for the City Council to adopt an urgency interim ordinance by a four-fifths vote of the Council (Section 31-1996).  Such an ordinance may be in effect for 90 days initially, and may be extended for up to two additional years.  This allowance is not consistent with state law provisions dealing with the adoption of interim zoning ordinances, or IDCOs, and therefore is not included in the proposed ordinance.  The City Council would still be authorized to adopt IDCOs under the provisions of state law.

Unrelated Code clean-up item

The proposed ordinance includes a minor change that is unrelated to the other issues discussed in this report.  The proposed change is to correct an error in BMC Section 31-1810.5 related to minor exceptions for continuing non-conforming side yard setbacks for single family homes.  In 2005 when the City Council adopted the revised development standards for the single family residential zones, the Council approved a change to Section 31-1810.5 to allow for minor exceptions to be approved for detached accessory structures in addition to the main dwelling structure.  When the ordinance was revised as directed by the Council, staff inadvertently did not change the requirement that a minor exception may not be approved for a setback of less than three feet.  Since the purpose of approving an exception for an accessory structure would be to approve a setback of less than the three feet otherwise required, that provision should have been modified accordingly.  The proposed ordinance makes this change.  Staff believes this is an appropriate time to make this clean-up change because the proposed ordinance is already making other minor revisions to Section 31-1810.5.

CEQA Determination

The proposed ZTA is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.  This section provides that a project is exempt from environmental review where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.  The proposed amendment deals only with procedural matters and would not change any development or use standards, cause any development to occur, or otherwise directly or indirectly affect the environment. The proposed amendment deals mainly with the organization of the Code and in general would not change the process for planning applications.  It would therefore have no environmental impacts (Exhibit D). 

PLANNING BOARD DELIBERATION:

The Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the proposed ZTA on September 25, 2006 (Exhibit E-1).  The Board expressed some concerns about the proposed Process Five, which would allow for City Council approval of certain ZTAs without prior Planning Board review.  Staff explained that the current Code already allows for this to occur, and that the proposed ordinance would be more stringent and require the City Council to make certain findings before approving a ZTA that had not been reviewed by the Planning Board.  Further, the proposed ordinance would clarify that all ZTAs dealing with development or use standards would require Planning Board review and recommendation prior to City Council consideration.  The Planning Board ultimately agreed with the proposed Code language and process as proposed by staff.

One Planning Board member asked about removing from the Code the ability for the City to withhold building permits for projects that may be inconsistent with the future zoning when a ZMA is being considered to down zone property, and whether it would be beneficial to the City to leave that provision in the Code.  Staff discussed this issue further with the City Attorney�s office, who stated that the City is preempted by state law from declining to issue permits in such a situation except when an IDCO has been adopted pursuant to state law.  As noted above, the option of an IDCO is always available to the Council as a means of restricting or halting development that may be inconsistent with anticipated zoning provisions.  It is therefore not necessary or appropriate to include the separate Code provision related to building permit issuance.

All of the Planning Board members stated their support for the proposed ZTA and the creation of the standardized permit processes as a means to simplify and clarify application processing requirements.  The Planning Board voted to recommend one change to the ordinance as proposed by staff, to include a statement regarding the applicability of timelines specified under the Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA to all planning applications.  Staff has added the recommended language to the proposed ordinance.  With that change, the Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval to the City Council of the ZTA, including all changes to Chapters 31 and 27 (Exhibit E-2).

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed ordinance changes the organization of the BMC and makes some minor changes to the way in which applications are processed.  However, the overall application process and the main steps in processing planning applications would not be changed by the ordinance.  The time and City resources required to process planning applications would not change as a result of the proposed ordinance.  There are no anticipated fiscal impacts.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed ZTA would reorganize the application processing requirements for planning project applications in Chapters 31 and 27 of the Burbank Municipal Code.  The amendment would create standardized application processing procedures that would assist with the implementation of a project tracking software system, increase consistency in application processing, and facilitate the addition of other types of planning permits in the future.  The amendment is intended to make the Municipal Code more user-friendly by improving its organization and simplifying the text to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in the planning project application process.   

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to approve Project No. 2006-26, a Zone Text Amendment, to reorganize the planning application procedures in the Burbank Municipal Code.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit   A        Proposed text of Chapter 31, Article 19 (complete rewrite, no redline)

Exhibit   B        Proposed text of changes to Chapter 31 sections outside of Article 19

                         (redline)

Exhibit   C        Proposed text of changes to Chapter 27 (redline)

Exhibit   D        Public Notice of Environmental Decision

Exhibit   E-1     Minutes of Planning Board meeting of September 25, 2006

               E-2     Planning Board Resolution No. 3045 dated September 25, 2006

go to the top