Planning commission chair Ron Durflinger says he has been trying to get the county commission's attention. Now he has it from at least one commissioner.
County Commissioner Charles Jones recently sent a letter to Planning Director Linda Finger asking her to relay his concerns about how some planning commissioners regularly overrule planning policies in Horizon 2020, the county's long-term planning guide, and the county's subdivision regulations.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The subdivision regulations are adopted policy and there should be very clear reasons for deviating from those policies," Jones said. "But today, there seems to be an attitude that it is inconvenient for the developers, so let's ignore the policy.
"We need to have a long talk about the difference between a policymaking group and a group that implements policy. I don't think some on the planning commission recognize that distinction."
Durflinger doesn't deny the planning commission has voted for projects that don't always follow Horizon 2020 or subdivision regulations. But he said there's good reason.
"I agree the governing body's responsibility is to create the policy, but when an advisory board like the planning commission sees the policies are failing, there seems to be no other way to get their attention that the policy is failing.
"I wouldn't be surprised to see more recommendations that go against policy in the future. I don't know that is the best way to get their attention, but I'm not sure it is the worst way either. Right now it seems to be the only way because the wheels of government seem to turn so slowly on their own."
Poor planning
Jones' Dec. 20 letter focused on a variance the planning commission recommended in late November, to allow an industrial park north of Lawrence to use a private rather than a public road.
Jones said the planning commission's action was a good example of how planning commissioners too often grant variances not because of a true hardship but because the variance will benefit a developer. Another reason might be that they don't want to go through the more difficult process to amend regulations.
In that case, developers of the Maple Grove Industrial Subdivision requested the variance because it would allow them to add an extra lot while configuring the others to be more marketable.
"If we make decisions based on those factors, I believe it will lead to the dismantling of our process and we'll get poor planning, sprawl and other negative consequences," Jones said. "In general, I think the planning commission is much too accommodating to developers at the expense of sound public policy."
And he said deviations aren't limited to technical issues such as road types or setback requirements. He said the planning commission also had deviated from broader Horizon 2020 policies, such as the requirement that rural housing developments be contiguous with other rural subdivisions or the city limits.
"Too many times they are saying they don't like the policy and we don't want to go through the trouble of officially amending it, so we're just going to gut the policy," Jones said. "We should take the time and have the debate to officially change the policy.
"If we keep doing this, our regulations will become so diluted that when time demands a good solid decision, we won't have either the courage or the history to make it."
Coddling developers?
Durflinger said such decisions have little to do with coddling developers.
"When the planning commission makes a decision, it is a far bigger issue than the convenience of the developers," he said. "Commissioner Jones has continued to try to paint a nexus between the developers and the planning commission. He's entitled to his opinion, but I think it is badly misinformed."
Durflinger said planning commissioners deviate from policy when it makes sense. Durflinger said Jones' own examples help prove his point.
Planning commissioners felt a need to issue the variance for the northern industrial park because the park is being developed, in part, to serve home-based businesses that may have to relocate in the next five years because of new county regulations.
"When they created those regulations, they didn't have any place for these businesses to go," Durflinger said. "The planning commission saw an opportunity to help solve the problem, so we did."
Durflinger also has been one of the commissioners reluctant to abide by the clause of Horizon 2020 requiring rural housing developments to be contiguous with others or city limits. He said he has deviated from that policy because many times if a project is denied, a developer can use the county's five-acre exemption policy to create a similar development that isn't as well planned and needs no approval from any commission.
Ticking time bomb
The five-acre exemption allows property owners to build a single-family home on a 5-acre tract without any rezoning or platting process. In the past, developers have used several 5-acre tracts in the same area to create the equivalent of small rural housing developments.
"The 5-acre exemption is a time bomb waiting to go off," Durflinger said. "I don't disagree with the philosophy that you try to develop policies and try to abide by them, but when the governing body creates policies that hurt the community, I don't think it is fair for them to criticize the people who keep bringing up the fact that it is a problem."
Besides, Durflinger said he's not sure how major problems are created by a group that serves in only an advisory capacity.
"With all due respect to Mr. Jones, he is yelling fire where there is no smoke," Durflinger said. "The elected body still makes the policy. If they don't like a recommendation we make, all they have to do is say no."
Changes coming
Planning Commissioner Myles Schachter, the lone commissioner to vote against the recent variance for the northern industrial park, said the planning commission's actions can create problems because elected leaders rely heavily on its recommendation when casting their votes.
Schachter said he shared Jones' concerns about variances, because they appear to be increasing. Schachter served on the city's planning staff in the mid-1970s and said he could remember only three or four variances requested during the 1 1/2 years he was there.
Now, he said, it was not uncommon to consider two or three variance requests at each monthly meeting.
Planning Director Finger agreed variance requests are increasing, but said there is a reason.
"That is one of the reasons we are having our codes updated," Finger said. "Our codes really weren't written for this century. They were written in the 1960s and a lot has changed since then."
Finger said it is expected the new codes will eliminate some requirements that produce variance requests today and may simplify the platting process.
"People in the planning profession would tell you that a large number of variances is a sign that our codes are ill," Finger said. "But the good news is we are getting them fixed."
City and county officials are working with planning consultants to change and update the codes. Finger said the process should be completed late this year.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.