1. Bonds: Problem: Sign off on bonds takes too long.
2. Bonds: Sediment Control permits - some would like contractor to be able to post bond
3. Bonds: Takes too long to get bond released at MNCPPC and DPS (forest conservation; swm/sc and ROW)
4. Building Permit: Takes too long to get all sign offs - MNCPPC and DPS both perform reviews.
5. Building Permit: Staffing is insufficient for timely plans review.
6. Building Permit: Establish timeline for permit review.
7. Building Permit: Sign off on Historic Area Work Permits - comes into DPS and then must be sent to HPC before HPC can process.
8. Building Permit: Quality of plan submittal is poor which results in multiple resubmissions lengthening the permit issuance time.
9. Building Permit - Expedited/Green Tape Permits: MNCPPC and Land Deveopment at DPS do not know when permit is expedited or green taped.
10. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: (1) Applicants feel that they do not get the input that they need at DRC; (2) Not all agencies and utility companies participate and many come unprepared; (3) DRC representatives are not available to meet with applicants to resolve site design issues and which need to be resolved before project gets to DRC.
11. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: DRC process doesn't result in timely resolution of agency issues.
12. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: DRC process doesn't result in timely resolutin of agency issues.
13. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: Planning Board Hearing dates can't be scheduled because agency comments have not been received.
14. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: Traffic Impact Studies are not distributed to DOT and SHA with other materials because P&P has not accepted study.
15. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: Guidelines and policies are treated like regulations or laws and applied in a manner that delays completion of reviews (but see row 17)
16. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: Agency comments and other information related to reviews are not universally available to all.
17. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: Applicant requests to deviate from standards cause review delays that are too lengthy.
18. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: Not enough information is provided at pre-submissioncommunity meetings about issues that may arise or how residents can participated in the review process.
19. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: Board's resolutions take too long to be adopted and may contain mistakes that result in more time to allow revisions to be made.
20. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: Projects require several levels of review and issues are often revisited at each review.
21. Pre-DRC, DRC and Site Plan: In practice Planning Board requires projects to comploy with Master Plans which may be difficult or even undesirable if plans are older and out of date.
22. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Totally impervious properties, such as parking lots require the submission and approval of a NRI/FSD.
23. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Environmental Guidelines are not administered consistently.
24. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Environmental Guidelines don't work for urban areas.
25. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Environmental Site Design (ESD) - lack of clarity as to what is acceptable and new products take too long.
26. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: It is difficult to get stormwater management approval in the right-of-way.
27. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Minimize review of simple projects by combining stages 1 and 2 stormwater management reviews.
28. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Preliminary and final forest conservation reveiws are separate and final occurs late in the process adding time to reviews and approvals which results in delay in release of Sediment Control Permits.
29. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are a continuing problem; ongoing post completion Best Management Practices (BMP) monitoring interferes with permit closeout and is expensive.
30. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Need to look at Special Protection Areas (SPA) law - are individual plans still needed.
31. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Processing Stormwater Management as-builts takes too long and large bonds are kept open too long.
32. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: DEP is ultimately responsible for Best Management Practices (BMPs) and developers ahve to carry risk of loss on completed BMPs and other facilities pending completion of entire project - can there be a mechanism for partial releases?
33. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Stormwater Management inspections may result in delays in the field because they are too prescriptive.
34. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Stormwater Management facilities are not allowed in stream buffers.
35. Environment, Stormwater Managerment and Sediment Control: Documents to be recorded take too long.
36. Record Plat: Takes too long; MNCPPC (reviews for compliance with Chapter 50 requirements/resolution and forest conservation): 1st review - 6 weeks; 2nd - 2 weeks. DPS (review for road code, well and septic, water and sewer) 1st review - 8 weeks (at same time as MNCPPC; 2nd review - 8 weeks; Signature - 2 weeks
38. Record Plat: Sign off on convenants and easements takes too long.
39. Record Plat: Public Improvement Easement is recorded with every plat.
40. General notes need updating; for multi-page plats don't want to repeat notes on each page;
41. Record Plat: Chapter 50 needs to be reviewed due to some "out of date" requirements
42. Right of Way (ROW) Permits: ROW permits expire before sediment control permits and stormwater management permits.
43. Special Exceptions: The resolutions on compatibility requirements are often reviewed and changed at subsequent stages in the development process. Site plan review sometimes chagnes previously made decisions.
44. Special Exceptions: Same as 43
45. Special Exceptions: Same as 43
46. Special Exceptions: Unlimited hearing times for rezoning. Irrelevant testimony is offered by parties because they are uncertain of the criteria for decision making.
47. Special Exceptions: Time it takes from intake to the hearing; Hearings are currently set not earlier than 4 and1/2 months from receipt to allow for Planning Board position; but there is a class liek accessory apts. that do not go to Planning Board first..
48. Special Exceptions: same as 47
49. Special Exceptions: same as 47
50. Special Exceptions: Too many levels of review takes too long
51. Special Exceptions: Residents don't know the process, are disorganized and out-gunned at hearings. By the time citizens show up, many decisions have already been made. The approval process is too complicated and it is unrealistic to expect resident to know the process.
52. Special Exceptions: Extensive time delay to commencement of a project.
53. Special Exceptions: Same as 52
54. Special Exceptions: Different submission requirements for each zone (ex. Need, distance from other similar uses, etc.)
55. Special Exceptions: Best product is not the goal of the process.
56. Special Exceptions: Takes too long to get to a hearing.
57. Special Exeptions: Inadequate enforcement of special exceptions.
58. Transportation & Utilities: Many conflicting law and industry practices (and newly adopted master plans) have resulted in a large number of exceptins to road design standards (many of which are the same or similar) which take a long time to process.
59. Transportation & Utilities: Limited staffing at MNCPPC and MCDOT to efficiently process applications/projects
60. Transportation & Utilities: Uncertainty because Context Sensitive Road Design Standards have not been fully published.
61. Transportation & Utilities: Need to address outstanding "parking lot" issues" from the original effort
62. Transportation & Utilities: Time it takes to negotiate, finalize, manage and enforce traffic mitigation agreements.
63. Transportation & Utilities: Development plans get hung up due to unanticipated staging impacts and lack of detail in master plan.
64. Transportation & Utilities: Redundancy between M-NCPPC and MCDOT transportation reviews produces conflicting comments.
65. Transportation & Utilities: Need for urban guidelines/standard practices to fit utilities and other amenities within constrained rights-of-way.
66. Transportation & Utilities: Disconnect between master plans and developers desire to make public roads private roads - WSSC needs same right ot put utilities in ROW as if public.
67. WSSC: Developer cannot release more than 50% of project for settlement until fully designed water and sewer for the entire project is completed, even though service may be in place for more than 50% of the overall project.