|
I am preparing an article for the Planning Commissioners Journal focusing on the situation described below. I would welcome feedback on ways of improving on the following all-too-common scenario: contentious, non-productive public hearings.
Many planning commissioners, at least occasionally, have had the experience of arriving at a public hearing to find a large crowd of citizens angry about a proposed development in their neighborhood. Often the hearing begins with a lengthy presentation by the applicant's architects, engineers, planners, and (sometimes) lawyers explaining the merits of their project and why it must be approved -- followed by a line of residents coming to the microphone to highlight a lengthy list of problems with the project. And often, the temperature in the meeting room feels like it's rising.
Planning commissioners often feel thrust into the middle of controversial projects. Yes, it is their job to decide (or recommend) on the application, but they may ask themselves why many issues between the developer and neighborhood haven't been resolved in advance. At some public hearings, planning commissioners may wish they could call a time out and get the two sides to sit down and work out some of the issues.
Looking for your feedback on the following:
1. are there pre-hearing approaches your community takes to identify projects likely to be controversial, and then seek to resolve some of the contentious developer/community issues?
I'm interested in hearing about approaches ranging from: neighborhood association review; other forms of informal dialogue and meetings; sketch plan review; community-developer advance agreements; the use of staff comments & recommendations; and anything else that has worked to resolve (or reduce) disputed issues in advance of the required public hearing.
Also, are there methods (or criteria) you use in advance to identify projects likely to be controversial? Or do you just know?
2. more productive hearings --
* are there approaches you've used to design more productive public hearings?
* are there alternatives to the familiar sequence of staff overview; developer project presentation; public testimony; commissioner question period?
* do you require the developer to make available models of the project or other visuals?
* how do you most effectively allow for both public and planning commissioner input?
* do you ever table projects (in effect, calling a time out) and then set up an informal process for resolving certain issues?
I'd welcome your feedback on any of the above -- or on other points you feel would be worth covering in the article I'm preparing.
If there's someone with expertise in the field you feel I might interview, please let me know their name and, if you have it, their email address and phone number. If you'd be willing/interesting in speaking with me over the phone, please let me know by email or by Cyburbia messaging.
|
Register Now for FREE!
1. are there pre-hearing approaches your community takes to identify projects likely to be controversial, and then seek to resolve some of the contentious developer/community issues?
I'm interested in hearing about approaches ranging from: neighborhood association review; other forms of informal dialogue and meetings; sketch plan review; community-developer advance agreements; the use of staff comments & recommendations; and anything else that has worked to resolve (or reduce) disputed issues in advance of the required public hearing.
In my neighborhood where i live in Philly, the civic association does courtesy reviews, but try getting a developer to take their recommendation seriously if it goes against what they want to do.
We do have our chairman/president spend a reasonable amount of time explaining the process before contentious dockets begin. For example, with subdivisions, we cover state statutory laws that favor subdivision and what happens if the PC denies a preliminary plat. (By state statute, we are obligated to advise the applicant of what fails to meet our subdivision control ordinance so that they can come into compliance. When the revised preliminary meets the ordinance, the Plan Commission then takes over a ministerial duty and must approve the prelim. plat.) We cover not only the process we use during the hearing (the classic system: staff report, developer, neighbors, comments) but what happens after the hearing.
I'm fortunate right now that I have a chairman and a president that both have good judgment and a willingness to use their gavel. They both also frequently use a phrase such as "Okay, we've heard about various drainage and traffic concerns. Does anybody have anything besides those issues?" This works exceedingly well at keeping the meeting from devolving into a long parade of complainers at the podium.
Last, we have used tabling to help cool temperatures down, but then only when the Plan Commission has some element that seems to be a "deal breaker" and they want the staff to work with the applicant to see if there's some way to make it palatable for all parties. (I don't much care for this tactic because the developer often gets the feeling that if they satisfy staff then the Board or PC will also go along. When they don't go along I get the grief.)
Even with all this, there are still meetings where I wish we had a police officer present.
Our PC is pretty good at identifying things that could possibly be contentious, so they will send us back to the office with a laundry list of things they want addressed during the Public Hearing. At the end of the public hearing, the property owner/applicant is always given a chance to rebut any statements, and the staff is given a chance to address any of the issues that speakers may have brought up.
Our state department of transportation holds informational open houses immediately prior to each official public hearing. State and local staff are available to help review maps and answer questions. This seems to dispel a lot of the misinformation and limit some of the anger during the public comment period.
Time limits on public comments work well. I've seen limits range from two to five minutes. An organized and confident chair also helps.
I'm currently tasked with a project that is very contentious and have suffered through three non-statutory screech-fests primed by a 70 year old woman with a vocabulary like a sea pirate (my apologies to sea pirates). All I do as staff is reiterate the facts of the case and let the chips fall where they may. Personally, I prefer to let everyone say their piece and then have commission/council vote. If people have been provided an opportunity to be heard in a public forum and are thanked for participating, they are generally better at swallowing a decision they may not like. I am fortunate that I have a visionary planning commission and town council that trusts me. I don't abuse that trust.
in Maine, subdivision includes a first step in the process called a sketch plan which is as the term implies - our ordinance allows the Planning Board to direct staff (me) to hold a neighborhood meeting on a project - they usually make the call based upon how many people are in the room for the application and how concerned they are in their comments
Our Planned Unit Development ordinance requires this meeting
they seem to be effective in flushing out the issues outside the hearing process - but they can backfire too as they often give abutters a sense of empowerment that they don't have - the final review, deliberation and decision rests with the Planning Board and often when the Planning Board approves something the neighbors didn't like but met the Ordinance, there is animosity at the end
another layer that helps is the site visit because it allows discussions to be a little more informal but the above warning remains and I often am the conversation police that makes sure there isn't any unintentional ex parte communication
in theory, the time for neighborhood meetings and get together's is the creation of the comprehensive plan and then the writing of the zoning so that by the time permitting happens, it really is a done deal because it's already been hashed out during the creation of the plan and its zoning - but it doesn't always work that way -
why? sometimes the zoning as written has unintended consequences we didn't anticipate, or, you can have a change in Board members, a turnover of residents and sometimes change is hard for people, even if they were part of the comp plan process
so it's not a simple answer but I do think generally that meetings outside the hearing process are a good thing but staff needs to make sure people understand the bottom line - also, the comp plan and the zoning need to correlate to what the neighborhood wants
feel free to PM me
Hope that helps.
Another great way to cut down on the reactionary stuff at public meetings is to ensure that a well noticed neighborhood meeting takes place and is conducted by the applicant with staff in attendance. This will provide a place for issues to get vetted without wasting a Planning Commissions time dealing with issues a developer may be readily able to solve up front.
I've even held worksessions on site with the entire Planning Commission before, in special cases. This takes a lot of time and effort for staff, as well as the Commission.