"Evergreen" master plan

[ChrisNorthrop]

Has anyone heard of "evergreen" master plans? The term "evergreen", when used in the context of labor contracts, is a general principal that the contract provisions continue even after the expiration of the contract until a new contract is executed. Depending on which side of the negotiating table you're on, it may be in your best interest or not to let the contact expire and just live with the old one rather than take your chances with negotiating a new one which may be less favorable to your position. How would this apply to a master plan since there is no "expiration" of the plan and there generally are not adversarial interests involved?

[NHPlanner]

Chris -

I've never heard the evergreen terminology used in the context of master/comprehensive plans.

(welcome, by the way, from a fellow Concord resident!)

[mike gurnee]

Many states have statutes that require plans to be review periodically. Every 5 years in KY, every year in KS (which is a joke). Plans "expire" as conditions change. When working on a new comp plan, I always conduct a review of past plans to determine what is still relevant. I have seen 30 year old plans that are still decent.

[Howl]

Many states have statutes that require plans to be review periodically. Every 5 years in KY, every year in KS (which is a joke). Plans "expire" as conditions change. When working on a new comp plan, I always conduct a review of past plans to determine what is still relevant. I have seen 30 year old plans that are still decent.

In Ontario we have a five year review period for Official Plans. Anyone (developers, landowners, residents etc.) can challenge any changes to the Official Plan by applying for a hearing in front of the Ontario Municipal Board. For many of the more complex cases those hearings can extend for more than five years . . . meaning the Municipality may be adopting its next version of the plan while they are still fighting over changes to their last update. I can't image how one year updates would work.

[mike gurnee]

I can't image how one year updates would work.

They don't work. At annual meetings staff recommends that no changes be made until (the new census numbers come out, the new highway is completed, hell freezes over, yada, yada). The planning commission most often agrees to ratify the existing plan until a comprehensive update can be undertaken. Except of course for this one commissioner ...

[Howl]

Has anyone heard of "evergreen" master plans? The term "evergreen", when used in the context of labor contracts, is a general principal that the contract provisions continue even after the expiration of the contract until a new contract is executed. Depending on which side of the negotiating table you're on, it may be in your best interest or not to let the contact expire and just live with the old one rather than take your chances with negotiating a new one which may be less favorable to your position. How would this apply to a master plan since there is no "expiration" of the plan and there generally are not adversarial interests involved?

The more common term is that a plan is a “Living Document”. That means it continually evolves, grows or changes over time. As stuff gets built, torn down, new ideas are brought forward or priorities change planning staff will update the plan and have the changes ratified by council. The term “evergreen” seems to apply more to an agreement, like a lease, where in the absence of a new lease agreement the conditions of the original lease are assumed to continue even after the original lease has legally expired.

[urban2rural]

I think "evergreen" is the opposite of "living document." In the living document or continuous planning idea, it is explicit that conditions and plans will evolve or even make sudden shifts in direction. Like the original post, I have to assume that evergreen means valid until there is a new planning process.

Much more on the continuous planning side of the fence myself. I have first-hand experience with required plan updates, but my take-away lesson was that regardless of the grumbling, the forced update brought up some valuable new points.

I suppose one could argue that "evergreen" would be more reliable for developers and investors.