Has anyone ever presented a project and outlined only the pros and cons without a recommendation? Basically presenting facts, then let the public hearing take place and see what the Planning Commission wants to do.
This is something we are considering doing for one project, but I have done this and just curious if anyone has.
that's pretty much all I do
just present the project as it stands, with the pros and cons following and end with you are happy to provide further understanding as requested to help the decision makers deliberate and ultimately decide
Yes..we call them "management reports" and than take the item back for future consideration. I can provide you a link to various projects on how we do this.Originally posted by tbagato
When someone yells "stop", I ask myself if I should collaborate and listen...
I would appreciate that! This is an amendment to a development agreement that is a public hearing. There are issues between a golf course owner and property owners around a maintenance facility. My director feels it doesn't matter to the city about the issue so we are planning on just stating the issues and hold the hearing without a staff recommendation.
Yes, but only on rare occasions. One such example would be a RV park in what is basically a single family residential area. The developer of the RV park met all of the buffering and design requirements of the zoning ordinance and even changed the access point to appease neighboring property owners. The RV park is a use allowed by right in the particular zoning district (another issue in and of itself). Since the property owner met all of the county's (a rural county) requirements, I couldn't recommend denial, but I had misgivings on the placement of the park so close to a residential area. If I had full out recommended approval, I would have been skewered for doing so. Likewise, I didn't have a legal leg to stand on if I had recommended denial. In the recommendation section of my review, I simply stated that the proposal met all of the county's zoning requirement.
Absolutely. For 5 years I did this with the Zoning Board of Appeals at a former employer. The Chair and Board was explicit that they didn't need specific staff recommendations.
Life was pretty easy when you don't have to defend a recommendation if challenged. Because, really, variances are either all recommended approvals or denial. There is no real gray area where staff professional recommendation is necessary.
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
We don't make recommendations for the Zoning Board, given the quasi-judicial nature of their role. We simply provide the background material and overview of the proposals to the ZBA.
We do make recommendations for all applications to the Planning Board, though, in certain circumstances (regarding issues specific to the Board's own judgement) we will not make a specific recommendation on certain items. An example from a couple of years ago:
"Because of the language of the Ordinance, the proposal before you tonight is a discretionary decision to be made by the Board. As such, Staff has no technical or regulatory comments to offer as recommendations to the Board."
"Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund
Thank you for the example! However, I am an Blackhawks fan and cannot support your avatar
Yes. It makes it easier in one sense, but also more difficult when the decision makers are really counting on staff expertise and you refuse to provide a recommendation.
Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.
Agreed. I am a little worried that I am going to get the deer in the headlights look from a few commissioners after public (potentially heated) testimony is given.
I've never worked anywhere as a professional planner where we never gave a recommendation. When I took my current position, they were not giving recommendations. That changed immediately upon my arrival. I my view, that's part of our job.
A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place — like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.
Until about a year ago we gave recommendations. The new boss wanted to move away from them because one of our Commissioners did not like staff advising the governing body on how they should decide and he made a stink about it every meeting. So now we present the issues of the land use decision before the Commission in the staff report along with the findings and conclusions and possible conditions of approval.
I am a soldier. I follow the orders of my superiors. Still getting used to the new system, because for me it involves writing the report backwards - writing the findings, then the conditions and finally the staff report. Whereas before, I wrote the staff report, then the conditions of approval and then the findings and conclusions.
Ever since I've worked here we've never made a recommendation on variances.
"I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."
~ Otterpop ~
I agree with the part of our job statement, at least in general. The one place I worked where we didn't, had a very interesting government structure. The zoning administrator decisions were not appealable to the city council, but were final unless appealed to superior court. This was because the city council wanted to reserve the right to appeal the ZA decisions, and they appealed the decisions quite often. My director finally got fed up with the council attacking staff for making recommendations they didn't like and stopped the practice. It definitely made for some deer in the headlight looks from the ZA when we started refusing to provide any indication of a recommendation.
Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.
I think our job is to help the decision-makers make decisions. I've worked in both places and where staff makes "recommendations" IME there is hand-waving and glossing-over to get a project done. Personally I prefer the public discussion of the decision.
More transparent that way, IME.
.02
-------
Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.
I can think of only a handful of cases where we did not provide a recommendation. A couple were cases like what superdragtn mentioned, and in those we discussed the need to revise the Code given concerns rather than provide a recommendation. The other time was an exceptionally rare instance in which the goals of an adopted plan conflicted with one another on a particular project, and from a professional perspective there was a good case to approve or deny. On that one, we laid out two scenarios in the staff report--a basis for approval and a basis for denial.
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)
This is exactly what concerns me about not making recommendations (it's just another step towards invalidating a planner's opinion). We are supposed to give elected officials advice, they should be capable of formulating an argument against our recommendation if they don't want to follow it. Sure, being an arbiter of the city's code can put a planner in a position where s/he has to make a recommendation that is "weak" in the context of a specific case, but most planners are savvy enough to address such situations in their staff reports and during the public hearing.
I can see not making a recommendation for variances as I've worked in both types of cities: those with very strict and those with very lenient approaches towards findings of fact. But I shudder to think of a rezoning request, especially in a city with an incredibly complex and nuanced use table, where staff is not able to make a recommendation.
Last edited by HomerJ; 20 Jun 2013 at 2:48 PM.
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
At the very least if you make a recommendation for approval, prepare findings for denial. If you recommend denial, prepare findings for approval. This keeps you out of trouble legally. There is nothing worse then getting a recommendation without findings, then being expected to defend it in front of elected officials, or worse yet, a judge. Not providing a recommendation isn't that bad if you have prepared findings for either denial or approval with conditions/stipulations/notes. If you have a study session and go over the facts and provide both sets of findings, the Commission can make a fully informed decision and see if any of the public speakers have anything new to offer.
If staff offers a recommendation, they will be forced to support it when the Commission votes the other way. Most places I've worked requires staff to support whatever recommendation is made by the Commission during presentations in front of elected officials. The record shows a disagreement, but the Commission finding is what gets presented. In every case where this happens, it doesn't look good to the public or elected officials and they automatically seem to think staff isn't on the same page as the Commission.
In reality as we should all know.....If 1/2 love us and 1/2 hate us, we're doing pretty well.
On the ground, protecting the Cyburbia Shove since 2004.
The only 'project' I presented which had a "consideration of" rather than "recommendation for approval of" was for a fee waiver for a non-profit organization of one of our application fees and a building permit fee. I presented the report and possible motions since the action was related to our department, but there were no formal rules for what is a 'worthy fee waiver request' nor was this request an actual planning issue, so we just presented the facts and the council was able to decide. I know that the City has since presented an actual planning project that outlined only the pros and cons without a recommendation, though I do not think they had done that previously (or at least not in recent history).
I am personally a fan of presenting a recommendation for or against a project. Our discretionary projects have several findings that need to be made, we then analyze the project and will either determine if the project meets those findings or does not. The commission and/or council can either agree with our analysis and recommendation, or can list their own findings. It just seems to make the decision carry much more weight, as HomerJ pointed out, otherwise any decision to support or deny a project can seem much more arbitrary and capricious, depending on what is discussed at the hearing. Variance types requests can go either way though, since their thresholds are much more nuanced.
And that concludes staff’s presentation...
Always provided recommendations for planning reports. In Ontario our appeals board is quite powerful, so it is important for Council to have good professional advice. We are not forced to support our employers position at the appeals board, as we are supposed to be testifying as an impartial expert witness, so if the Council goes against our recommendation they may have to hire an outside planner if someone appeals.Obviously outside of the appeals setting we will implement Council's decision.
For policy type reports when I've provided reports with "options" I've found that many times the first question ends up being "So what is your recommendation?" However when the choice is more political and there are multiple reasonable options, you just need direction from Council on which option to pursue further and you just present the pros and cons of each.
In my reports, I quote all the standards from the Ordinance what the board or commission should review, and comment on each of them. For the PC, I make a recommendation if it is a cut and dry situation. However if there is still further information that should be discussed with he applicant. Then I reference that.
However, I do not make recommendations to the ZBA as it is the board use to appeal decisions that I make. Therefore I stay neutral on variance requests. But they can get an idea of my direction based on my comments on each standard.
Me: "I am sorry, but the Ordinance and the Master Plan does not permit that at this time. But if you would like to request amendments, this 355 page document outlines the procedure. You will need…. (CLIPPED TO ACCOMMODATE LIMIT) …. It will likely take 36 to 48 months to get final approvals. Then you can submit for a building permit and break ground Would you like to get started with the process?
Applicant: "Geeze, a simple No you can't do that would have worked"
Quote
