Contributor Opinion by Joseph Jordan: Planning Commission Behaved Poorly
Jul 25, 2008 6:40 - 10 Comments
Posted by: Brad Rourke
Department: Contributor Opinion, Opinion
Tags: affordable housing, by Joe Jordan
Department: Contributor Opinion, Opinion
Tags: affordable housing, by Joe Jordan
The following contributor opinion is by Rockville Central friend Joseph Jordan:
I am writing to express my resentment with the way the Rockville Planning Commission conducted itself at their July 23rd meeting. The only agenda item was a review and action on a use permit to construct Phase II of Beall’s Grant Apartments. The trouble began after the applicant, his attorney and architect gave their presentations and answered questions from the commissioners. It was then that residents were able to give testimony on the plan. Quite a large number of residents that live in the vicinity of the planned project did so, and except for one, all were opposed to its approval. Many reasons were given, including concern over continued decreases in property value, increased traffic on Beall, overcrowding at Beall Elementary, impact on Snowden Funeral Home, possibility of increase in crime, and the fact there is a concentration of “affordable housing” sites in the area.
Needless to say, the discussion of low income housing…where it is built and who lives there…will always be a sensitive topic. Sides will be taken and there will often be accusations of NIMBY, stereotyping, elitism, etc. During the course of such discussions, it is incumbent on the body in charge to temper emotions. Rather than doing this, certain members of the commission aggravated the situation by engaging in arguments with residents. Rather than act deferentially toward the residents and acknowledge their concerns, residents were asked how long they lived there, if they knew the area had a high crime rate before they moved there, were they implying that people who would move into the new apartments would all be criminals with elementary school aged children, and so on. On more than one occasion the chairwoman had to ask for order and cut the questioning off.
I recognize the commission is made up of citizen volunteers, but that doesn’t excuse the manner in which the meeting was conducted this week. Isn’t the role of this commission to hear testimony, maybe ask a question or two for clarification, and offer no rebuttal or argument…nor seek “probative evidence”? I would like to know what the City position is on how testimony is taken by the commissions. Was the manner in which this commission conducted itself acceptable or did they go beyond that?
Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to contribute too! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.
Subscribe in a reader
You should send this in to the Gazette, too.
The Rockville Planning Commission should be embarassed by the way they acted. Some accountability is called for here. Look like there needs to be a hearing on how to conduct hearings.
Council Member Piotr Gajewski shared the following response:
I watched a segment of the meeting on Wednesday. Like you, I am concerned with some of what I witnessed. Having said that, as a Councilmember, I do not feel it is constructive (or perhaps even appropriate) for me to comment. The performances of the commissioners speak for themselves, but to the extent that they invite commentary, it is much more powerful for the press and citizens (like you) to comment.
As you know, I have concerns about the form of the City of Rockville government. I feel that many of our institutions, that perhaps were well suited to a City with a smaller budget and a smaller population, no longer serve us well. I am on record, for example, as advocating that the role of Mayor should be altered to that of a Chief Executive, in order to ensure a more direct accountability of the government to the electorate. Perhaps expecting superb professionalism from a Planning Commission, composed of lay volunteers, appointed by a non-executive Mayor (with the acquiescence of a “weak council”) is also unrealistic. So, rather than taking individual commissioners to task (I have to give all of them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing their best in serving their City as volunteers), I would prefer to examine the system that, at times, seems to lead us to most unsatisfactory displays and results.
I watched the video of the commission meeting, and found the behavior of the opponents to be extremely provocative. These were people who circulated a shrill anonymous flyer opposing the project largely on the alleged criminal behavior of potential future residents of Bealls Grant II, and yet when the members of the Commission questioned that level of hyperbole, the opponents are now suddenly horrified that the demeanor of the meeting was less than civil.
In fact, several of the opponents were so overwrought and emotionally perturbed that I was stunned at the level of their anger. One woman was literally sputtering with rage. The only parties at the meeting who were able to conduct themselves entirely in a civil manner at all times were the representatives/advocates of the project.
With all due respect to “anonymous” 3:26 PM…each resident had their 3 minutes to express their opinions. It wasn’t until provocative questions were asked by commission members that things got out of hand. The point the writer was making in the comment post was, don’t stoke the flames of a controversial topic if you don’t have to. The commission would vote one way or another, regardless. During citizen forum at council meetings, citizens get to speak for 3 minutes and mayor and council can respond afterwards, if they so desire. There is the rare question during testimony, and never the kind of exchange exhibited Wednesday.
I was at the meeting but was not involved, more or less a neutral observer.
The level of civility was not as alarming to me as what I learned about how planning is done in Rockville. It reinforced my thoughts that the citizens don’t really have a way to stop, or modify to any significant extent, the ideas that developers (and their minions within the government) bring forward. Outside consultants are given more credibility and influence than taxpayers. What we thought were limitations written into the master plan have become mere guidelines. Even though there is a method for notice, most citizens don’t get involved until the powers that be have been working with the developers for so long that they feel they have passed the point of no return. The potential for profit by developers and the correct following of procedures by government functionaries combine in a way that usually works against the best interests of the population as a whole. I felt this way about the Town Center project and it can be observed in the ongoing process that is the Rockville Pike project. Quality of life for those of us who work in and/or live in Rockville is secondary to the interests of developers and the new people they hope to attract to the city.
We need to find a better way to doing the business of “planning”.
I didn’t participate at this particular Planning Commission meeting but I do share concerns after observing a few others this year.
Aside the Mayor and Council, the Planning Commission is the most powerful and influential body in the city and whose decisions often affect residents and businesses for decades. These decisions are mostly the result of the knowledge and experience of the Commissioners, the guidance and involvement of Planning staff, state and city regulations, and the decision-making process.
But these ingredients are found in all commissions, committees, or boards, which in our country are mostly made of volunteers and seems to be a result of our democratic sensibilities. So the suggestion that a powerful chief executive will solve the chaos of voluntary boards actually gives me the shivers (no thanks, I prefer our City Manager form of government in Rockville to the corruption and politicking that’s rife in Strong Mayor cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, and Washington DC).
Having served on many boards and commissions, I discovered most of my colleagues took their roles seriously but were confounded by their new responsibilities. They didn’t know their exact responsibilities and were unsure of processes and procedures. Unfortunately, it’s mostly “on the job” training and it often seems like you’ve been handed the wheel to a truck speeding down the highway. But in this case, the steering is actually being done by seven people at one time, so the “good driving habits” of a Commission can be easily upset by just one or two members.
After being appointed, very few Commissioners are trained for both their general and specific roles. The Historic District Commission is the *only* one in the City whose members are required by law to meet minimum professional qualifications and attend continuing education annually. Even so, it only recently developed its own comprehensive manual that provided state and city regulations, organizational charts, flow charts for common processes, guidelines for meetings, and reference materials.
So in the particular case of this Planning Commission (and it’ll change every time one member changes), the serious weaknesses are the mismanagement of public meetings (and that responsibility falls to all Commissioners, not just the chair); inadequate knowledge of both city and state planning codes and other regulations (there’s an incredible amount to master for Planning Commissioners); and an unwillingness of city staff to provide sufficient guidance (I won’t say “inability” because all the planning staff members I’ve met are smart, but somehow seem to be hamstrung when they attend public meetings). The first two can be solved with additional training but the last requires direction and support from the City Manager and the Director of Community Planning and Development Services (and perhaps the Mayor and Council).
And just for consideration, is there something crucial missing in our city code: we clearly spell out how a Commissioner is appointed but not how they may be removed. Perhaps this is to prevent these offices from becoming too political but if you’ve got a real stinker on your commission who doesn’t prepare for meetings, abuses staff, and insults citizens, currently we have to wait until his or her appointment expires, which could be as long as five years.
This discussion, although uncomfortable for some, is valuable and points out the perennial need for everyone to stay involved in Rockville’s government, both as citizens and “governors”.
Mark Pierzchala
I attended this Planning Commission meeting. While not happy with aspects of it, one of the big problems for the protesting neighbors is what I call “The Big Surprise”. Most of them found out only on Monday (two days before this meeting) of this particular application.
I’ve seen other Big Surprises in Rockville and experienced this myself. Those who are caught out are suddenly on the defensive and have limited time to prepare and state their case. This often results in unpleasant meetings and confrontation.
Timely and effective notification on such high-impact neighborhood issues are constant concerns. The requirements for notification are stated in the zoning ordinance, and I hope Mayor and Council take a second look at these as they continue to review the new zoning ordinance.
For these immediate neighbors to have had a fairer chance to influence the proposal they would have had to have been drawn into the process far sooner than this last PC meeting. Perhaps they could not have stopped it, but maybe they would have been able to reduce its scope, or at least obtain more conditions attached to its approval. The neighbors did not have a fair say in this project just because they had a chance to express their concerns at this meeting. (I personally support Phase II of Beall’s Grant Apartments.)
The meeting did have the good effect of raising some city-wide issues on the distribution of these developments, traffic and school impacts, among others.
I have attended about 8 meetings of the Planning Commission in the past few months. About half of these were work sessions on the new zoning ordinance and the others on various projects around the City. The body has a good mix of experienced and inexperienced members, and taken together their knowledge of planning matters is very high. Their work on the draft zoning ordinance was excellent.
My experience on the Rockville Planning Commission (1998-2005) was a rewarding and educational one. During my seven years the Commission reviewed large development projects such as King Farm, Fallsgrove, Twinbrook (Commons) Station, Town Center and we approved the City of Rockville Comprehensive Master Plan.
My understanding of the role of the Rockville Planning Commission (RPC) is to draw out and clarify the positions of people on all sides of the issue and to identify the relationship of such position to the public interest. The Commission members have the responsibility: 1) to acquire adequate information; 2) to be fair; 3) to make rational decisions; and 4) to take a broad perspective. Staff and legal advice is provided to prepare the cases.
Once all information is presented to the RPC, the best decision is made on the presentation. If a commissioner disapproves on a project, compelling reason must be given which are arguable in a court of law.
The greatest benefit I saw with the Planning Commission is when it was able to negotiate with the applicant on optional methods of development. It produced a win-win situation and resulted in additional conditions set by the commission. Often times the testimony of citizens were weighed into the decision and their concerns were satisfied by these conditions.
The disappointment I experienced with the planning process is the notification process. It has not received the attention it needs for improvement. There were many discussions by the commission with staff on this issue but little improvement has occurred. The Rockville Mayor and Council are aware of the concerns, but also have found no solution.
As long as everyone is fair in the review process, a win-win situation can occur. No confrontation is necessary.
Brigitta Mullican,
Former Rockville Planning Commissioner
Appreciate the discussion here on Beall’s Grant II. I recently have been very disappointed noticing all the ugly red “STOP Beall’s Grant II” signs sprouting up along Beall and in other places. The individuals orchestrating this effort, and I believe we can guess who it is by looking at all the signs on North St near the McMansions, had a chance to air their arguments against this excellent afforable housing project, and their concerns were not found to be compelling. The crime issue on Dawson is real, but it is not related to BG I or II and should be dealt with as a separate issue. Traffic is always an issue but I bet they did not protest the offering of hundreds of luxury condos in Town Center and all those new car owners. The Beall Elementary School issue is really a non-starter, as the numbers of elementary students generated by the 109 units would be small, and this issue also comes up with Town Center and any other nearby developments. I am really ashamed in fact that Rockville residents near this proposed property seem to be saying: Yes we want luxury condos but we can’t have those “low income” apartments. They will primarily be workforce housing, are badly needed, and nicely balance all the other high end housing in the area. I urge residents to pull out the ugly red signs and support BG II. If you just want to STOP it, what would you propose as an alternative, leaving an abandoned building and empty lot? Shame….
Concerned Rockville Resident
I’m just tired of seeing the signs everywhere. Its like there’s always some issue somebody needs to make up a yard sign for. The traffic impacts of this will be just about ZERO. The school impact will be tiny. The building will be a useful improvement to the dense town center area. And the people will be the ones who serve you dinner or teach your kids.
But, the more confusing part is that this is getting people so enraged. How many MPDUs were in Town Square? Not a peep was made, what is different here?
Beware of who is driving this process, and what the real reason is behind it…