Last Night’s PC Worksession
Dear Chairman Milne:
With each meeting, I have become increasingly concerned by the behavior of the Planning Office staff and particularly the Acting Planning Director, Deputy County Executive Horner.
Last night’s worksession regarding the Independent Hill Small Area Plan served to underscore my many concerns.
It is readily apparent that the Planning Office staff has either ignored the public’s and the Planning Commission’s issues with the Small Area Plan as drafted. Further, it is inexcusable for staff to, yet again, show up at a meeting as woefully unprepared to answer relevant questions as was Mr. McGettigan last night. Simple, direct questions require simple, direct answers that should anticipate and be prepared to respond to.
For example, when asked about the possibility of a data center being allowed as a component of the plan, Mr. McGettigan waffled, noted the Tech Flex definitions and subsequently asserted that it could be an allowable use.
Let me be very clear on this issue, I grow weary of the seemingly endless new zoning categories and definitions being added by contractors and staff at every opportunity. This must cease and the studies and staff reports must define uses and zoning using the adopted language in the current zoning ordinance. The addition of new categories and definitions that do not comport with the zoning ordinance merely create undue confusion and portend unintended (or perhaps intended) circumstances at a later date.
The answer to the question is simple, data centers and their accompanying substations are not a byright use in ANY zoning district outside of the Data Center Opportunity Zone. Data Centers outside of that zone require a SUP as do the substations. I wrote the draft ordinance so I am damned familiar with it.
Moreover, the question with respect to whether the Planning Commission and the Chairman of the Planning Commission in particular may cancel or defer a scheduled public hearing for a Small Area Plan is a decided issue.
I should not have to remind you that Article 5-1.3 empowers the Chair to rule on all procedural questions (subject to a majority of the Commissioners present). Similarly, should the Planning Commission determine that it needs more time or information to consider a Small Area Plan, the Planning Commission has the authority to delay further consideration until those concerns are addressed. Unlike a rezoning application, there is no statutory timeline or deadline requiring the Planning Commission to march to the Planning Director’s tune.
I have served as a Planning Commissioner and Chairman of a Planning Commission for a decade and, unfortunately, have recently reassumed that role. I know of what I speak and have personally put a large rubber band on a packet staff had deemed acceptable and returned it to the planner advising them not to return until the information was complete and outstanding questions answered. To do otherwise would simply waste the time and effort of the Planning Commission as well as that of the residents who would attend a public hearing.
It is the job of the Planning Commission to review matters with the health, safety and general welfare of the public in mind, not the personal agenda of staff and/or the acting Planning Director.
Enough is enough. Given the manner in which the acting Planning Director has acted over the past two years, it is no wonder that the public in general is dissatisfied, angry and skeptical about anything presented by staff.
Respectfully,
Robert B. Weir