2006-03-09 Tplanning_director - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

can submit an application with no information, no member of the public has any idea whats going on, the Planning Director grants his approval or her approval, we have no basis to appeal, we have no basis to challenge it, we know nothing and the developer gets vested rights. This is extremely troubling. Chris will not be the Planning Director forever. Whether his terms ends in December with a new mayor or two Decembers from now, there will be a new planning director. And to put such unfettered discretion to allow a developer to not say at all how drainage is going tobe dealt with, how sewage is going to be dealt with at an early stage, so that the public can meaningfully participate is not in the public interest. The reason why so much of this information is important, although it has been ignored for years is so that the public can protect those resources that are important to them. For example, if youre concerned about burials on the site but you dont know if an underground injection well is going to be built near it, if you dont know how the sewage is going to be disposed of and therefore you dont know what impact it will have, it impairs your ability to successfully not just challengeaprojectbutimproveaprojecttomakesurethataprojectdoesnthavetheseimpacts. Thats why this information needs to be submitted. Now I dont have a problem with the change on my draft page 8, subsection 7 that says that improve -, the existing language in the law says, requires the developer to submit information on improvements to be made by the developer and the approximate times such improvements are to be completed. It seems to me that it makes sense, in attempting to deal with the ramifications of the Leslie decision that this amendment makes sense. I dont agree with the change to subsection 3 which now requires the developer to provide information regarding the approximate location within the subdivision of existing sewers and waterlines, culverts and drain pipes, etc. etc. That kind of information needs to be there so the public can meaningfully participate before tentative approval. So with the exception of, with the recognition that the change to the informational requirements in paragraph 7 makes sense, the wholesale granting of unfettered discretion on the Director to not allow any information to be submitted is not in the public interest. Id like to point out that, two other things. One is it is really unfair for the suggestions to be made that unless you do this all these subdivision approvals that have been granted previously are jeopardized. I dont think thats fair or reasonable to characterize it as has been suggested in the, well, by the Planning Director in the Section l in the bill. Its not fair to suggest that because theres a 30-day window within which to appeal a tentative approval. And so all those tentative approvals that were granted without having the informational requirements, it is too late to challenge them. But once the Leslie decision came out, and Im hoping the Planning Department conforms to it, they could not have granted any approvals for applications that didnt have the requirements. So, anyway, its not fair to expect that previously granted approvals are jeopardized. Finally, I just want to leave you with this thought that this bill gives a whole lot of flexibility to applicants. Were essentially removing the word shall from the Subdivision Code. When members of the public attempt to request a contested case hearing and the contested case hearing has a set deadline, if members of the public miss that deadline shall means shall and they cant get their contested case. So why, it just seems to me a little unfair that were holding members of the public who are not represented by attorneys often, who are not represented by professional engineers, who are not represented by professional consultants, were holding them to a strict standard, but were not going to do so for developers. I just dont think thats fair. Thank you. 6EXHIBIT D