Knew it could not last

[donk]

Knew being in a good mood could not last.

This is somewhat related to the "saying no" thread.

As a professional, at what point do we get to draw a line in the sand and tell our employer that the documents we have to enforce and the quality of work used to prepare them is inadequate and should not be accepted? I have a brand new plan(4 months old) that has already had 2 amendments done to in, one of them completely foreseeable, and have still not received a consolidated version of the document. The copy I have has stickies referencing specific council and court decisons. Try interpreting that in a holistic manner.

On a related point, what would you do if you know your employer is going to write a zoning By-law that will increase your workload by requiring that every single land division in an area where you want growth to occur is going to require a rezoning?

"Early next week" can not come soon enough. I need a smiley with shot gun in its mouth.

[Tranplanner]

Know what Donk? Given the situation you're in, I'd stand firm and let'em have it. They can't fire you for arguing something like this - and hopefully you'll be gone before you need to pick up the pieces.

I thought your director knew his $hit. Can't believe he'd try to implement something like this.

[Gedunker]

When I first read the title, I thought the deal on the *castle* had gone south

I'm with Tranny: let 'em have it and stand your ground!

[SW MI Planner]

So your director wrote the garbage? Great....

I agree with Tran and Gedunker, approach him and let him have it. It would be nice if he would respect you for coming to him, but we know thats probably a long shot. Better yet, put it in writing with your reasonings on why the document sucks, and hand it to him when you sit down to talk. That way, if there are reprecussions, you have documentation that you have legitimate concerns (and didn't just go in there throwing the zoning in his lap while telling him how much it sucks).

[donk]

We are in the process of "writing that garbage". they seem adverse here to planning and seem to prefer administration. No wonder we can't do any planning, we are too busy administering foreseeable applications. There are even provisions in the enabling legislation here to allow for "holding" zones for the foreseeable.

I can't believe I have found someplace more backwards.

[GeogPlanner]

deregulation by disregard?

[CCMNUT39]

How does the enabling regs allow you to rezone everytime you receive an application? What would be the point of even having zoning if you are going with that approach???????????????????????

I'm just a simple caveman planner, not used to your modern technological ways, can someone explain it to me? Thanks!

[Richmond Jake]

...[snip]...by requiring that every single land division in an area where you want growth to occur is going to require a rezoning?...[snip]...

Now wait a second, this could be a brilliant idea. Here's my thinking: zone changes are legislative actions that normally don't require findings. That's unlike CUPs, variances, land divisions, etc., that are quasi-judicial in nature and are typical based on findings of fact. The decision makers can zone the property anything they want provided it's consistent with the Comprehensive/General Plan and don't need to make findings of fact. See where I'm going? You could deny a project for no apparent reason such as you didn't like the applicant/developer, you didn't like the color scheme of the tie he was wearing, their hair was too short/long, and call it a legislative action. Brilliant!! (Or am I missing something?)

[donk]

How does the enabling regs allow you to rezone everytime you receive an application? What would be the point of even having zoning if you are going with that approach???????????????????????

I'm just a simple caveman planner, not used to your modern technological ways, can someone explain it to me? Thanks!

Here is the explanation, we place all of the "vacant" properties into a zone that allows no use to occur on them except the existing use (ie farming). The Plan wants growth to occur in these places. So in order to create a lot for a house or a slaughterhouse you have to change the zoning to permit the proposed use of the property. Considering we are talking about communities with less than 100 people in each one we should just zone them for houses and place a "holding" provision on them to require Hydrogeologic studies / heakth approvals.

This response is way to serious for the FAC.

As for RJ's comments, unfortunately zoning here is appealable on fact / findings and the intent of the Plan, so if you don't like someone it is pretty hard to justify it through planning, especially since once you are at the Board, it is as if the case never occurred and you start from scratch. In my last jurisdiction this argument could have been used, and actually was a few times.

[CCMNUT39]

That is definatley a "new" way of thinking. I'm not sure if I would be down with that type of forward thinking that would allow anything from residential to light industrial.

When you are going through a the public hearing processes for these types of rezones on land use applications, how much opposition do you see???

I know folks here in my neck of the woods (rural ambiance in an urban setting) come out of the woodworks when we propose a change near a residential neighborhood.

[donk]

That is definatley a "new" way of thinking. I'm not sure if I would be down with that type of forward thinking that would allow anything from residential to light industrial.

When you are going through a the public hearing processes for these types of rezones on land use applications, how much opposition do you see???

I know folks here in my neck of the woods (rural ambiance in an urban setting) come out of the woodworks when we propose a change near a residential neighborhood.

I don't really see it as forward thinking because the expected uses (estate residential uses) require the same type of applicaiton as the crazy uses. It seems odd to me to purposely set up a system that requires lots of time and effort to administer when all you ever do is complain that we don't have the time to plan.

This is still be worked through, we have not had any applications for anything other than houses in these areas since I've been here. Realize that my statement about 100 residents is the biggest place, most are not much more than crossroads with 10-15 houses.

[CCMNUT39]

Sorry about that. Realize when I meant "new" kind of thinking, I was being a bit of a smart-ass.