ARB Minutes – Special Meeting November 29, 2021

Village of Dering Harbor
Architectural Review Board
Special Meeting Minutes
November 29th, 2021
11:00 AM

● Meeting was called to order at 11:02am.
● Attendance: Susannah Rose (chairperson), Stephanie Deutsch, Bridgford Hunt, George Birman, Mickey Kostow, Wayne Bruyn (village attorney), Vicki Shields (village clerk), Margarita Benacerraf, Julie Farri, Marian Brownlie, Kimberly Rea
● New Business

○ Discuss and review of ARB procedures.
Susannah summarized what the procedure should look like during a Public Hearing of the ARB where they are reviewing a building permit application. She explained the difference between a pre submission conference and a Public Hearing where the ARB needs to vote on whether or not to approve the plans that have been presented.
With each Public Hearing, there will be a motion to open the hearing, the chairperson will make sure the hearing was properly noticed, the applicant will present their application, members of the ARB will have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant (clarification and/or explanation of materials and plans presented), public comment period will be opened, public comment period will then be closed, after which the ARB can deliberate. Wayne clarified that the purpose of the Public Hearing is to establish a record for the board, as well as the public comments, to be included in the ARB’s consideration.
The ARB must decide to either close the Public Hearing, or keep it open and adjourn to a later meeting date if the applicant wants to make further submissions or there is a certain degree of public interest that warrants the Public Hearing to be kept open.
Once the Public Hearing is closed, the ARB has 3 options:
1. Hold a vote and make a motion to approve the application as submitted.
2. Adopt a resolution to approve the application with conditions and/or
3. Make a motion to deny the application.
The ARB is not obligated to make a decision the day the Public Hearing is closed. They can adjourn for further deliberation until its next meeting. Wayne recommends that if the ARB is not going to approve an application that the decision be in writing.
Stephanie asked Wayne what the advantage is of keeping a Public Hearing open. He responded that there is no advantage or disadvantage. What the ARB must determine is whether or not it has enough information to make a decision. The statute states that if the ARB has suggestions for changes to the application, that the applicant has further opportunity to consider those suggestions. Only when the applicant has indicated that they want no further opportunity and they are ready for the ARB to render their decision, does the ARB close the Public Hearing on the application. He also explained that the ARB needs to obtain permission/approval from applicant to go beyond the 60 day required decision timeframe if a hearing will be kept open. George asked Wayne about the procedure of making motions. Wayne explained that any board member can make a motion. It’s up to the chairperson whether or not to recognize the motion that’s been made. There was a conversation about when to open the public comment period. Wayne said that boards want to hear from all parties concerned before deliberating. But there’s nothing saying that the board can’t comment first, open up to public comments after that, and then make further comments after the public comment period has closed. Margarita said she thinks there’s merit in hearing ARB comments first before opening it up to the public. Bridg commented that he would want to hear from the public first before forming an opinion. George commented that he thinks it’s important to allow the public to speak, without feeling like they are being cut off, while also being efficient. Susannah added that efficiency and clear, concise thoughts will become even more important in these meetings. Susannah asked Vicki to send electronic copies of all the submissions to members and alternates of the ARB. Wayne reminded Vicki that applicants are required to send electronic copies of their applications as per the code.

● Bridgford had two things to share:

○ First, Susannah asked him to place the Design Principles in a more prominent place on the website and he has done so.
○ Secondly, to follow-up on the discussion the ARB had at their last meeting with an applicant about roofs (since he sensed there wasn’t a lot of support from the ARB for asphalt), he noted that of the 23 homes featured in the Design Principles, 12 have asphalt roofs, 7 have wood shingles, 2 have slate, 1 has tile, and 1 has wood shake. He gave a gentle reminder that the ARB needs to honor the Design Principles that it has asked applicants to refer to as they design their homes.

● Next meeting date: December 11th, 2021.
● Motion to adjourn at 11:28am was made by Susannah and seconded by Bridg. All Board members voted in favor.