Editor’s Note: In response toquestions and comments we’vereceived about the role of plan-ning commissions and how theycan work more effectively, I invit-ed four of our contributing writ-ers (Wendy Grey, Carolyn Braun,Jim Segedy, and Lisa Hollings-worth Segedy) and one of ourpast editorial advisory boardmembers (Lee Krohn) to join mein a roundtable discussion.

In this Corner: thePlanning CommissionIn that Corner: theGoverning BodyWayne Senville:

There’s occasionally – somewould say often – a tensionbetween planning commissionsand local governing bodies.This can come up in the con-text of development reviewdecisions (in those states wherethe governing body has thefinal say); proposed zoningamendments; or recommendedchanges to the comprehensiveplan. Sometimes planning com-missioners feel their carefullyconsidered recommendationsare ignored or tossed out due to“political considerations.” Bothbodies could be said to “repre-sent” the public, but their rolesand responsibilities are certain-ly different.

Lee Krohn:Communication is always

key, but does not by itself solvethis potential problem. Here,the selectboard (i.e., local gov-erning body) generally givesdeference to the planning com-mission’s recommendations,but these must still be defendedand supported (it’s not simply arubber stamp process).

Ideally, a legislative body doesits best to choose good com-missioners, and then lets themdo their job; this also requiresthe planning commission torespect and understand its rolein the overall process.

Carolyn Braun:Over time, the planning com-

mission is trained to becomethe citizen “experts” for landuse requests. The elected bodycan take advantage of this train-ing by carefully weighing theplanning commission recom-mendation, especially for appli-cations that requireinterpretation and applicationof specific provisions of thezoning code, i.e. conditional

My question to you: Shouldthe planning commission takeits “marching orders” when itcomes to land use policy fromthe governing body – or shouldthe governing body give defer-ence to the commission as thecommunity’s “expert” on landuse planning and policy – orneither of the above?

Jim Segedy:The planning commission’s

marching orders are to providethe best advice to the governingbody as laid out in the compre-hensive plan, mindful of thepotentially evolving notion ofthe health, safety, and welfare of the whole community. If nec-essary, the commission shouldforward its advice / recommen-dation with appropriate references to the plan and ordi-nances adopted by the govern-ing body on behalf of thecommunity. The planning com-missioners MUST remain abovethe politics.

Wendy Grey:

When the planning commis-sion submits its findings andrecommendations to the elect-ed officials, those recommenda-tions are advisory. This doesnot mean they are not wellthought out and well reasoned.It does mean that the electedofficials have the final say. Theyare ultimately responsible tothe public for those decisions.Just as the planning commis-sion’s recommendations maysometime differ from staff’s, sothe elected officials may differwith the planning commission.

That said, there is clearly aproblem if the planning com-mission and the elected officialsare frequently at odds.

16

P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 8 5 / W I N T E R 2 0 1 2

However, on matters of landuse policy, it is important forthe planning commission towork jointly with the electedbody to make the most efficientuse of resources, including thetime and effort it takes to makemajor changes. Heading off inthe opposite direction from theelected body most often endswith a failed effort. Instead, thecommission should meet withthe elected body and provideinformation that supports theirproposed policy or plan.

Wendy Grey:Carolyn makes an important

distinction between the plan-ning commission’s responsibili-ty for implementation of thecomprehensive plan and thecodes (e.g., through site planand subdivision review) andthe commission’s responsibilityto provide recommendationson policy matters (e.g., through the plan update process). Plan-ning commissioners can usethe expertise gained from theirimplementation responsibilitiesto help resolve potential con-flicts with elected officials onthe policy side.

Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy:I think the planning commis-

sion and elected body shouldbe trained on plan developmentand land use decisions together

F E AT U R E

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION:

Putting Some Oomph into Planning

and special use permits. Theplanning commission’s expertopinion provides a way forelected officials to make a well-reasoned, defendable decisionwithout political influence.

so each has the same basis ofunderstanding even thoughtheir roles are different. Thiswould avoid the “us vs. them”standoff that frequently hap-pens. My personal observationis that the governing body fre-quently sets aside the planningcommissioners’ plan-based rec-ommendation and (inappropri-ately) makes political decisionsthat violate the stated purposeand/or goals of the plan.

Common training of the twobodies plus a once a year retreatto review the plan and resolveany areas of conflict can behelpful, as well as a periodic“look back” to see if the deci-sions made resulted in develop-ment that met the plan’s goals.

conditions have changed sovastly in the community thatthe plan is no longer relevant.

Regardless of the situation,when the plan isn’t being fol-lowed by the elected officials, it is time to sit down and talkabout why, then get to work onplan revisions – and specificallycultivate support for the new/revised plan with the electedbody.

A plan that isn’t followed isworse than no plan. Aside fromthe potential legal problems thatcauses, it is also critical becausethe message it sends to the peo-ple who were involved in plandevelopment is that the plan(and consequently the commu-nity’s goals) don’t matter.

Jim Segedy:I also strongly encourage a

periodic joint session of thegoverning body and the plan-ning commission to exchangeideas, priorities, and explainthe whys and wherefores of thedecisions made. This can bedone formally or informally.

Wendy Grey:Two other related points for

planning commissions to con-sider.

First, make sure the reason-ing in your recommendations isclear. Rather than just a state-ment in the elected officialsagenda item that says “ThePlanning Commission recom-mended denial,” ask staff (ifthey don’t already do so) toinclude a summary of the plan-ning commission’s reasoning.

Second, try to understand thereasons for the differencesbetween the two bodies. It may be that the planningcommission is making recom-mendation based on a strictapplication of the comprehen-sive plan but the elected offi-cials, seeing flaws in thecurrent policies, are trying tomake what they think is themost appropriate decision. Incases like this, the planningcommission can be proactiveand recommend changes to theplan that get everyone on thesame page.

Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy:To follow up on what Wendy

said, if there’s a long traditionof elected officials NOT follow-ing the planning commission’srecommendations, even whenthe commission completes adocumented recommendationexplaining the rationale behindtheir choice, then there’s aproblem with the plan.

Perhaps the plan was com-pleted in a previous administra-tion, and the new elected bodyis not invested in the plan. Orperhaps the plan was createdpre-economic crisis and the

17

P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 8 5 / W I N T E R 2 0 1 2

or development review respon-sibilities? Any suggestions?

Jim Segedy:If typical agendas are full,

a separate meeting should beheld – on a regularly scheduledbasis – for proactive strategies.Plain and simple. Do not ignorethis critical commission func-tion.

Carolyn Braun:I agree, if there is not ade-

quate time at a regular planningcommission meeting, schedulea work session. If at all possi-ble, have regularly scheduledwork sessions based on a list oftopics identified by the com-mission and the staff at thebeginning of the year. Thensystematically work throughthose items.

We have monthly work ses-sion where we discuss long-range issues; potential changesto the ordinance (often arecently highlighted issue); and actions taken by the citycouncil.

Occasionally those meetingsinclude a field trip to an area orproperty, with some of thosefield trips simply to observe theoutcome of previous develop-ment approvals. The meetingsare held a little earlier in theevening and are generally nomore than 1½ to two hours.

Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy:If you’re working on a comp

plan, there may be a range ofoptions depending on the plan-ning commission’s preferenceand the timeline for plan devel-opment. For instance, youcould provide the first 30 min-utes of each meeting to reviewan element of the plan anddevelop goals and priorities; oryou could establish a work ses-sion schedule separate fromregular meetings to work withstaff in a plan developmentprocess.

continued on next page

Finding the Time forLong-Range PlanningWayne Senville:

I want to ask a question I’veregularly heard over the years:how can our planning commis-sion best find the time toengage in long-range planning,when we’re often (other thannow when the economy’s sosluggish!) occupied with project

Carolyn Braun:One way to strengthen the

commission’s relationship withthe elected body is to hold jointwork sessions. This can bedone annually or on a projectbasis. If there is a bigger project– such as developing develop-ment standards and identifyingzoning for a larger area – thecommission can periodically“check in” with the electedbody – provide an update andseek feedback.

All too often, the elected bodyis expected to make a decisionafter one discussion on a topicthat the commission spentmonths working through. Ifyou want them to support yourdecision, help them get to thatpoint.

Wendy Grey:Preparing a long-range plan

or updating an existing plan isa time-consuming process. Toallow adequate time, considerestablishing a special schedulefor rezonings and comprehen-sive plan amendments for theduration of the development ofthe plan or the update.

For example, if the planningprocess is expected to take oneyear, the local governmentcould schedule rezoning hear-ings every two months or everyquarter, rather than monthly.Similarly, the local governmentcan restrict plan amendmentsto one time that year.

Sometimes the workload willjust demand that the planningcommission conduct extrameetings dedicated solely tothe plan development or

Wendy Grey:A related approach to what

Lee mentioned in Vermont isfor the local government tolook carefully at the develop-ment review levels assigned toprojects, and ask the planningcommission to review onlythose projects of a magnitudeor nature that warrant a higherand more public level ofreview. These levels of reviewthen need to be included in theland development code.

I have seen some codes thatgive the planning directorauthority to “bump” the levelof review from the developmentreview board (or its equivalent)to the planning commissionunder certain circumstances.This is usually done for smallerprojects that have some poten-tially controversial aspects.

update. If that’s the case, thereare a couple of logistical tipsthat may help:

• establish a schedule at thebeginning of the process (e.g.,Meetings 1 and 2 are for LandUse; Meetings 3 and 4 are forMobility).

• set deadlines for the distrib-ution of agenda materials thatallow time for review prior tothe meeting – and encouragestaff to present the material in aconcise way, with major policydecisions clearly articulated.

• finally, if meetings becometoo lengthy or unproductive,consider using a facilitator.Sometimes a third party can seea way to move things towardsresolution.

Lee Krohn:In Vermont, our state ena-

bling law allows towns to createwhat are called “developmentreview boards.” A planningcommission’s developmentresponsibilities are then shiftedto this board, freeing up thecommission to focus on plan-ning.1

Also, as others have noted,the planning commission mustset aside certain meetingsspecifically for long range plan-ning and/or become more effi-cient in development review.

18

P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 8 5 / W I N T E R 2 0 1 2

Are there ways you’ve foundto keep both the planning com-mission and the communityenergized and engaged in long-range planning and in makingsure the plan’s recommenda-tions are followed up on?

Wendy Grey:Monitoring and evaluating

the implementation of the planare good ways to keep thevision of the long range plan inthe forefront. Often, data col-lection and analysis occurs onlyas part of the comprehensiveplan update – but regularlymonitoring key indicators willhelp keep the community onthe path set out in the plan andalert you to when somethingneeds to be changed.

For example, if the compre-hensive plan calls for morecommunity parks, the localgovernment can monitor theacres of parkland created. If theindicator shows a lack of imple-mentation, you have the oppor-tunity to analyze the situationand see how to do better.

These indicators can beshared with the public by post-ing them on the local govern-ment website and includingthem in the local government’sannual report.

Carolyn Braun:On an annual basis, our plan-

ning commission reviews thegoals and policies of the com-prehensive plan and the citycouncil’s annually-establishedgoals. They use this informa-tion to develop a work plan forthe coming year.

Lee Krohn:Plan follow-up can be like the

tides: sometimes it requiresactive energy, sometimes letthings rest, sometimes it needsa board member or staffer to

Taking aCloser Look:BasicPlanning Tools

From comp plans to zoning basics

to citizen surveys, this collection

of 19 articles provides an overview

of tools and techniques used by

planners and planning boards.

Attractively bound, and delivered

by first-class mail, you’ll receive

this 67-page booklet within a few

days.

For details and to order, call us at: 802-864-9083or go to: www.plannersweb.com/tools.html

Planning Roundtablecontinued from previous page

1 For more on Vermont’s development review board enabling law, see “Manual ofProcedures for Administration and Enforcement of Vermont Zoning Bylaws,” prepared by the Vermont Land Use Education & Training Collaborative:<www.vpic.info/pubs/admin_manual.doc>. For the statutory language:<www.leg.state.vt.us/> [search Statutes for Title 24, Chapter 117, Section 4460].

Keeping the EnergyFlowingWayne Senville:

It seems that every five yearsor so (the interval differs fromstate to state and community tocommunity) the planning com-mission focuses on revising/updating the local comprehen-sive plan. Sometimes, there’s ahuge effort involving manymembers of the community.But then after the plan is adopt-ed, that energy often seems todissipate.

keep the plan alive as issuesarise or as we create opportuni-ties to achieve goals. This canbe via capital budget planning,development review, or foster-ing collaboration with privateentities or nonprofits to achievemutual goals. To give oneexample, our planning com-mission participates in thetown’s capital budget process,to try to ensure that long rangetown plan goals are reflected inthe municipal budget.

Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy:I have also found that many

plans just include lists ofactions for the local govern-ment to implement. Few activities are delegated to localnon-profits, interest groups, or community organizations.Therefore, once a plan is com-plete, there’s no work remain-ing for process participants todo. If there is more emphasisplaced on community in theplan that would create broaderengagement in plan implemen-tation.

Jim Segedy:I agree. The best way to keep

the community engaged is togive them something to do. It isnot the responsibility of theplanning commission to do itall for the community. Thecommission’s job is to facilitatethe community putting theirplan into action. In otherwords, to steal from Nike®“Just Do It.”

Wendy Grey:

The idea of involving the

to evaluate policy implementa-tion and make recommenda-tions to the elected officials.

Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy:

One other point. It’s impor-tant to recognize the work citi-zens do. I recommend anannual review/celebration dur-ing which plan achievementsare recognized and the groupswho “got it done” get somekudos. This could go for localgovernment as well. Media cov-erage, awards, etc, would helpto make this something folks inthe community would look for-ward to.

community in implementationreinforces the benefit of identi-fying responsibilities as part ofthe comprehensive plan updateprocess.

If the government is going torely on other community agen-cies or organizations to imple-ment components of theplan, that should be madeclear. This information doesnot need to be adopted in theplan – there can be a supple-mental implementation docu-ment with responsibilities andtimelines.

One of the planning commis-sion’s responsibilities should be

19

P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 8 5 / W I N T E R 2 0 1 2

What have you found to be themost important attributes of aneffective planning commissioner?Carolyn Braun:

Good listening skills; the ability to deal withdebate that includes varying points of view; good analytical skills; and the desire to learn.

Wendy Grey:

Patience; being a good listener; and being able towithstand public criticism.

Lee Krohn:

To be “visionary” – that is, a big picture thinkerwho can look beyond “what is” to “what could be”.

Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy:

To be motivated by the community’s best interests; not to be afraid to do things differently;and to have imagination – and an “amen” to Lee’s comment!

Jim Segedy:

To be open-minded and fair, but willing to maketough decisions; to have a willingness to explorewhat makes a quality community; and to be able tounderstand beyond the “sales pitch” how thingswill truly impact the community.

Carolyn Braun,AICP, is long-timePlanning Directorfor the City ofAnoka, Minnesota,located in the TwinCities metro area.

Wendy Grey, AICP,heads Wendy GreyLand Use PlanningLLC in Tallahas-see, Florida, and isformer PlanningDirector for Talla-

hassee and Leon County.

Lisa HollingsworthSegedy, AICP, is anAssociate Directorin AmericanRivers’ WesternPennsylvania fieldoffice.

Lee Krohn, AICP,is long-time Plan-ning Director forthe Town of Man-chester, Vermont.

Jim Segedy, FAICP.is a consultingplanner, and pastDirector of Com-munity Planningfor the Pennsylva-nia EnvironmentalCouncil.

Wendy Grey:

Lisa’s comments about awardsand recognition is a reminder ofhow important it is for the localgovernment to find ways toshow its appreciation for thework planning commissionersand other involved citizens do.

For commissioners, subscrip-tions to publications, reim-bursement for conferences oron-line classes, and an occa-sional “get together” with elect-ed officials are great ways forthe local government to saythank you – planning directorstake note! ◆