Under New Business A, Ordinance 2012-17, will be the first reading to change the qualifications and powers for members serving on the Planning & Zoning and Historic Preservation Boards. A few of the "visionaries" want those on the planning & zoning board to have "qualifications" such as Realtor, developer, land-use attorney and the like, bringing members of certain professions back on the board who have personal as well as special interests. Being a simple "lay" person is not good enough for them...just being intelligent doesn't cut it.
As William Waters said, the Planning & Zoning Board now is under set rules with a professional staff in place..."almost anyone with reasonable intelligence can follow the rules and determine whether what before them can meet the Ordinance or not." But that explanation just doesn't do it for this commission. Waters also said that everything before the P&Z is reviewed by his staff that is now up to snuff. They review; they make suggestions; they ensure that the board is following our ordinances. There is no way the P&Z could go "rogue."
Back on July 5, 2011, an Ordinance was passed on the 2nd reading and approved by Maxwell, Mulvehill and McVoy. Commissioner Golden was absent for the passing. In that Ordinance it was agreed to eliminate the two alternates and create a 7 member board; it created member terms that were staggered and thereafter all succeeding members would be appointed for 3 year terms. The thinking was to get politics out of the appointments as the commission changed every 2 years and it had a tendency to sometimes make political appointments. Now before us tonight is to go back to a 5 member board with 2 alternates even though staff when asked on March 8th said that we had a 5 member board with 2 alternates.
Fast forward to March 8--If you recall, the city commission had an intense discussion on this subject back on that date. At the end of that lengthy discussion, no vote was taken-- no motion was made-- and no one said anything about qualifications coming back for a vote. NO ONE. So why is it appearing again? Tonight qualifications will probably be re-instated with the majority of the P&Z members background being development related and the ordinary citizens, with no vested interest other than their love of city, ending up being a minority make-up of the board.
Vice Mayor Maxwell, at least on three occasions during that March 8th meeting, asked Commissioner Amoroso what his intent was in putting it on the agenda. "What do you want to take away from this tonight?" He then asks the question, "How do we insulate ourselves from a lay board that wants to go rogue?" Even at the very end of the discussion he would not let it die when he asks, "What has the body decided?" He kept hoping that his questions would lead to a vote. No one bit that bullet on the dais. But here it is again on the Agenda for a vote, 3-1/2 weeks later.
The entire purpose of this qualification issue is political. They want certain people off the board-- probably Cara Jennings as one. They are scared to death of anarchists taking over our city. They are using the pretense of "qualifications" to kick their "undesirables" off the board. They also want to make it easier for their developer friends who come before the P&Z to get their way in the early stages of the process. I mean, forced to come back with a whole new site plan even if it is better for the city is a real drag and costly to that developer. They want to prove to themselves and to the development industry, "See, we are business friendly."
There are three positions coming up for consideration that expire on July 31, 2012, not two as stated by staff in the March 8 meeting. Those members are Vice Chair Robert Waples, Chair Lynda Mahoney, and Linda Davis, all highly qualified and dedicated individuals.
The only people trying to politicize this process and making wrong assumptions at that March 8th meeting were two commissioners.
I've only attended a handful of P&Z meetings. Just based on observation, Cara and Gael are the rogues. Lynda Mahoney was very deliberate, did her homework and asked pointed questions. You could tell her point of view is definitely anti-development though. The experience shows in both Waples and Davis and when they speak, it comes from their direct knowledge of the building industry, development and real estate.
ReplyDeleteMcNamarra doesn't ask pertinent questions and is often off base, doesn't do his homework.
The back and forth between staff and people who know their stuff or have done their homework and the desires of the applicant are what make for an informed choice that can be passed on to the commission for their final approval.
You didn't mention the report from Waters showing how many other communities handle this dilemma. They appoint qualified people, who can hold their own with a professional staff and add a couple ordinary citizens with ordinary intelligence to balance out the board.
This sounds like what Waters is offering tonight. It also sounds like a good compromise.
I've always been somewhat divided on this issue. It does make sense to have people with a P&Z background on the P&Z board, the problem has always been that these people have their own interests and the interests of their friends to consider. If you make your living as a developer or a realtor you are going to have self serving interests that I just don't think can be put aside. Look at the history of the P&Z board when it was stacked with these folks back in the boom time, they were seriously considering approving developments in single family neighborhoods that drastically upped the permissible units per acre, they were considering giving up alley ways, allowing devleopment over the alley ways, etc. A lot of the very bad town home projects sprinkled around this city can be traced back to these guys doing favors for their friends. It was even worse when the P&Z was also the historic preservation board.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to have folks with "qualifications" on the board then have it be a mix, three with qualifications, three community reps and one neutral. We need people on the p&z board to be looking out for us not all the developers with deep pockets.
And finally, having a board stacked with qualifieds, opens the city and the board to conflict of interest issues and law suits related to same, ethic problems and fraud as well.
Waters said that the planning code was rogue not the Planning Board.
ReplyDeleteHe explained that the code asked the planning board to be many other boards such as the Appearance Board and should be written to include these duties within the Planning Board itself.
Anonymous at 4:09--Good analysis of the situation. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe p&z board was critiqued for not shutting down a 25 unit apartment building on S federal even though they approved the sheriff deputies’ recommendations to not shut it down and added the requirement that all occupants and tenants have to pass the background check used by law enforcement or be evicted within 10 days.
ReplyDeleteThe property manager has to come back before the board in May to show that he has complied with all requirements including bring the property up to the landscape code.