IS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW A VALUABLE THING?

The Planning Commission is an independent body. It has a duty, among many other things, to review building applications for zoning code compliance and to render recommendations to the Board. This is advisory only; the Board will always vote how it determines. Although the Board is wise to consider the Commission's input thoughtfully, it is not bound by it.

 

To endeavor to put the Commission "under the thumb" of the Board as I believe is currently being proposed under Ordinance 2, Chapter 3, Sections 8 and 9 (See website Town Board packet part 2.) is to ignore the Commission's independent value. Ideally, the Commission is made up of five people who do their homework and consider the Ordinances as the underlying laws that they are. Many Commissioners take this very seriously and do their best to advise the Board as appropriate, keeping the good of the Township citizens in mind always. More perspective is a good thing.

To attempt to negate Commissioners' ability to make a recommendation within the constraints of our laws, to advise that they have their duties unless "otherwise directed by the Board" is to beg the question of do we need a Planning Commission. If the Board is free to "direct" the Commission to a specific outcome, why doesn't the Board simply take on the whole load? The Township has for decades utilized the Planning Commission to review building permits to streamline the approval process for the Board and the applicant. The Board has many other duties and considerations that take its time without this proposed change. What would be the reason for the Board to "direct otherwise" than for a permit to go before the Commission? Does this open a door for possible future Board majorities to walk through for their own private agendas without initial scrutiny by the Commission? Be aware that if the Planning Commission does not render a recommendation within 60 days, the Board can go ahead and act on its own. This is already in our Ordinances, and is there to deal with the 60-Day Rule. (State Statute)

The Board doesn't have to agree with the Commission, nor does the Commission have to agree with the Board. It has been ever so. Each body has the responsibility and has the authority only to follow the Ordinances. To reach a decision that is contrary to what is clearly spelled out in the Ordinances, no interpretation, especially no "rounding" up or down when a specific numerical amount is given, is to reach an arbitrary and capricious decision in my view. "Arbitrary and capricious" is a big red flag, and, again in my view, puts the Township at risk. All citizens are entitled to a fair and even-handed application of the laws we have enacted as a community. Ordinances apply to everyone, all the time, every time. There is no other way to do this fairly. The Ordinances can be changed through public process under the State Statutes, but in the here-and-now we must abide by what they state today.

Changes to the Ordinances are not good in and of themselves. A recognition of the bigger picture and a considered, deliberate approach is always called for when making changes to our laws. Disagreement with the other body's conclusion is not a valid reason to change the ground rules. Further, all Ordinance changes can, and often do, have unintended negative consequences that come to light later and must be fixed. Therefore, let us consider and act in a thoughtful, not a reactive, manner. 

More specifically, to decide that the Board can "otherwise direct" Planning Commission's role in the review of a change or amendment in zoning as proposed in Ord. 2, Ch. 3, Section 9 is actually in conflict with the State's planning statutes. As a municipality, we simply do not have the authority to detour from that.

As a last point, it is also proposed to change the "Purpose" section (1) to address the functions, powers, and duties of the Planning Commission. The Purpose section serves its own purpose (!) and it is advisable to state purposes for various ordinances to make intent clear. Section 6 of the Ordinance actually addresses the functions, powers, and duties of the Commission and uses the term "shall" which legally means "mandatory."

Let the Planning Commission do its job.