Planning Board - Regular Meeting

e e e e

e e e ready okay I'm calling the planning board meeting the January 9th planning board meeting to order at 601 um do I hear a motion to uh adopt the agenda I'll make a motion to adopt the agenda I'll second all those in favor okay motion passed um we also need to approve the minutes so I would like a motion to approve the minutes of December 12th motion to approve the minutes of December 12th now

second all those in favor okay okay next we can move on to the organization um rules and procedure um would I like to go ahead and make a motion and then start the discussion or are you going to discussion okay let's move on to discussion then thank you great thank you very much um a few months ago I had ordered um suggested rules procedural rules for local appointed boards and uh it's by Trey Trey Allen and a Fleming Bell III uh it's public this booklet is published by the UNCC School of government um specifically for local appointed boards I.E planning board board of adjustment uh and uh and it's based on Robert's Rules Robert the edition of Roberts rules uh was sorry uh uh uh was released in uh September the September of 2020 and so one of you might ask especially if you're new well why do we use Robert's Rules why do we have parliamentary procedures and so uh one is to formally move the business that the planning board has on to uh out front to where that you can discuss it take action on it uh in an orderly fashion and it's also it also provides a framework for

fairness and openness um to where that anyone that has a comment to make uh even if you're in the minority of an opinion you have the opportunity to make your statement and uh but it will still be uh it'll still be the majority that decides on the recommendation um and it's essential to understand the basic rules of Robert's uh Roberts Rules of Order they can be quite complex and it might take some uh to me it takes some mental gymnastics for people that really know Robert SES very well and they use them very well in debate um I don't think we've ever gotten to that point it's generally you know make a motion second and you have a discussion um and whatnot uh ours is a little bit more simplistic uh but at the same time it gives that framework and it gives the opportunity for uh everyone to discuss items that that come before you uh so fair debate um and the other thing is is that all votes are counted equally and one of the differences between the planning board board of alderman where the chair of the planning board gets to vote and in whether it doesn't matter tie or not but you you still get to vote for the board of Alman the mayor does not get to vote unless there's unless it's to break a tie um let's see so um we've had we've the planning

board board of adjustment have actually had rules of procedure since about 2007 for both of them and then uh the intent is every every May once a year that the planning board board of adjustment you review those rules of procedure to see if there are any changes that you would like to make on on those uh in Prior additions this one is a little bit different I think I think I did it or tend to do it to do it that way is we had to change we had to make amendments to the rules excuse me after Hurricane Florence when this building was not available and the administration was displaced and we were having meetings next door to the Pizza Hut or we were having meetings uh I don't know if the planning board did but I know the board of Al men did at St reges or at the fire station uh it seemed like we had meetings everywhere but my kitchen table right um so I think that the way that this is written or hopefully uh it is have to double check on that that we have an assigned meeting place we have an assigned meeting time and that schedule gets published January December or December January but preferably December for the upcoming year and it gets published right um and then it also provides guidance on if there's a change in that schedule and who can who can make that change right so have all of you had a chance I know it was like 14 pages and it and I know that it can be dry as sawdust

um was every did everybody have a the opportunity to go through and read through those pages so no yes I couple years ago right right so uh so basically it's an update to include the 2020 Roberts rules so if uh if there was one there was one question I'm glad that uh chip is here with us hey good afternoon chip how are you doing can you hear me sorry yes I there we go there you go yes I'm well thank you all right so there was one question and I left it highlighted uh throughout the the template that the UNC or that Fleming Bell and Trey Allen provide they have some like little brackets where you can pick one or the other or they you have some flexibility in there and so how how you have normally conducted business and how it has been in the past I simply fix fix that for you put it put it how you normally conduct business but I did have one question that I wasn't sure about and I left it highlighted under rule 29 duty to vote fancy Shades aren't going to help um in the I won't read that whole thing planning board may not excuse a member accepting cases involving one a conflict of interest as defined by law or the planning uh or the planning board or to the member's official conduct or

own Financial in interest the unexcused failure to vote by a member who is physically present in a meeting room or has withdrawn without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members comment like they give all the options uh shall be recorded as an affirmative Vote or a negative vote so affirmative affirmative okay great I thought you'll get to this in your video um but all the Motions are made in the affirmative so it would be an affirmative vote okay all right I think that was the only question that I had on there um so if you if you've had a chance to read through them and you're comfortable with uh op in them as presented with the correction and affirmative vote uh then we could proceed uh chip did you have a chance to review those draft to review the Draft rules of procedure I did I thought they were very good okay and did did you have any edit any edits or any corrections to it I didn't know very thorough all right well done excellent I have one question okay which is the um it's number Rule 21 we normally do second every motion yes but it says no second is required on any motion do we want to say that we second or stop seconding or yeah so where where it's not required CH uh the planning board wants to continue

with seconding the Motions so on rule uh 21 we could strike out not and say second required yeah I think that's appropriate and so the sentence would be second is required on any motion and so the rule rule 21 would be there's also it's written somewhere else in here too okay I'm not I can't remember exactly where said it was not required okay uh I'll look for that and make that make that change my my question on that is I always was I always thought that in order for emotion to keep for discussion purposes that you had to have a second and then you went into discussion right so because if somebody makes a motion and then there's no second then the motion dies correct so I I'm a little confused here by that even being an option or the change cuz then it sounds like any motion is in motion that you would have to vote on whatever motion was made right right I think so if so if one person is interested in a subject right and say you have a panel of seven or eight people and nobody else is interested in it you just still go on with discussion and then to me it seems wasteful time wise do am I making myself clear on that I'm I'm not sure yeah well I think if you yeah I think and Robert of order is is a bit Arcane but it's the standard that a lot of

folks work from and what they do what boards tend to do is take sections of it and amend it for their own uses um a lot of Robert J you won't need um it deals with yeah ourcan parliamentary procedure that won't concern you the idea of seconding a motion ordinarily in a parliamentary procedure situation is absolutely necessary in a board like the planning board I can understand why um the authors of of this may have suggested that it may not be required well some I think as a matter of practice it might be a good thing to do um but I don't think that you know I think there's an argument to be made I can see an argument about why you know it might not be needed right well there could be somewhere in the weeds certain motions that don't require a second and that may be what this is referring to and it got just got put into the into into the text because like I say if you get way down into into the weeds of it there probably some motions that don't require a second and that may be what that's referring to Y well I've seen I would suggest I would suggest the board I'm sorry that whether you second or don't second a motion will not cause problems in court if the decision is challenged it is more of a creature of parliamentary procedure rather than a legal necessity like a quarrel right or a vote in favor yeah I've been at several meetings with especially at the end when you adjourn somebody makes a motion to adjourn and then everybody just gets up and leaves and never really have a second sometimes and you know I can see something like that

happen yeah there were a couple of sections uh MO 10 on page 13 is one where I I took out and just put not applicable uh and I did that to keep the numbers the same and so if it I didn't for whatever reason I I just didn't want to CH change the numbers and so if it referred to like referring an item to a committee which is not something that the planning board would do uh then I just put you know not applicable on there so um you know it as we go through if you find and that's what amendments are for you know once you vote to to reopt this or or to adopt these Ru rules of procedure then as we go on or if you if your eye catches something that is that doesn't fit the planning board and how you want to conduct business then all all you have to do is bring it up at a meeting we'll put it on the G and uh amend the ru amend those rules it it's something that needs to be something that works for you not something that uh that you're handicapped by but but the basic foundations and you use them automatically this is just formalizing those rules and also you know having a um having a chair having a vice chair and uh what the what the notification responsibilities are in in the event of if you have to cancel a meeting what are the procedures you know so it's just basic really just basic nuts and bolts organization how do we traditionally con conduct business and certainly consistent with

um the rest of the localities uh you know in the state basically I had one question about closed sessions um I was always under the understanding when the group usually it's been a city council or Board of Alman come out of a closed session they're required to give a brief of what something about what happened in the close session and this says apparently just you just continue your meeting am I am I misinterpreting what I inter what coming out of a closed session is no all they have to do is whenever they come out state that that that no action was taken right but this doesn't even say that yeah because because you can't I guess you can't take action during a closed meeting so them saying we didn't take no action taken it's just kind of a confirmation that they were following the rules that they did not take any action so so where it doesn't where it doesn't say anything and you come straight out the presumption is is that you didn't take any action but if you but for whatever reason say if we went into closed session and I and that was unusual for me we haven't done that since we've had this is something that's uh come up since we've had the new attorneys where they've gone into close session with you and we did not have that in the previous rules I had taken it out because we never had we never went in Clos session you know I didn't have a uh I did not foresee as going into close session so in the in those you know drafts whenever I had it I just took it out so now

that now that we have attorneys that want to brief the Committees and there's a need to consult with the attorney that is certainly the one reason that you would have have for going going into close session does that make sense so now we so now having it in the rules leaving it in the rules then it it kind of you know you're okay I I just always thought you had to have something like we discuss the Personnel matter or something like that just leave it at that don't have to say what the personal matter was and then just continue with the meeting it's it's not that you what for the board of Alman and even for for us like if we were getting ready to go into close session at the beginning of it you would have to announce and I think there's like five five reasons something like that about nine or 10 yes you're exactly but why why you're going into close session so so the chair would say uh the next item is close session we're going into close session for and then you know site the uh North Carolina General statute you know a uh consultation with Town attorney so and it's usually on the agenda yes absolutely written on the agenda what it is yeah yes okay I guess we can move on um it's entirely up to you if you are prepared to uh if someone's if the consensus is to go ahead and adopt the um procedural rules as then somebody then you can then you can have somebody make a motion if that's if that's the

consensus uh it's entire Le to you does anyone have any concerns that they'd like to bring forward okay no I'd like to hear a motion then to um approve the updated rules and procedure as amended move to accept the document as printed okay all those in favor do we want to make those two changes the and he said as printed but as as as discussed and amended and so the changes were affirmative and that we do want a second rule rule 21 second required second is required on any motion and the other change was rule 29 wasn't it Y where it is the affirmative vote yes thank you and and just to be nitpicky uh he said accept should we not use the word approve or does it not matter oh what does the town attorney say uh approve approve okay I think it's 61 half do of the other but approves probably good change we want to um clean up that motion I move we accept approve the approved the the changes in amendments to the procedures I second okay any more discussion okay all those in favor I I thank you motion passed very cool the

two the two new guys made the motion in the second very cool y I like that all right we're down to um public comment and I'm guessing that there's no public comment as we don't have an audience physically in front of us anyway we'll move on to discussion American Planning Association presentation video legal decision making for for

aspect decision start but just that what are the legal implications of a plan commission recommendation how cautious do they have to be do they need to pay attention to any legal precedent or start us off the that sure well at its heart a plan commission is is supposed to uh conduct a thorough public vetting of a development proposal or anything that comes before it uh and make a recommendation to the city council or the village board uh whichever municipality it may be uh so the recommendation matters uh and and the conduct of the hearing matters because in theory the facts and testimony provided at the hearing will provide the basis for the plan commission's recommendation um plan commission needs to to allow as many people or interested parties to speak at the public hearing as possible uh because you want to make sure you have a a well-rounded full body of evidence to make a recommendation on and you know Village boards and City councils tend to pay attention to plan Commissioners you know the mayor appoints the plan commissioner and they're typically confirmed by uh the city council so they've placed trust in them there's an expectation that they will uh go ahead and and do their job thoroughly and diligently uh so the recommendation absolutely matters okay so but for the they don't have to worry too much about the city getting sued if they're doing their job if they're going through the process correctly and ultimately there's an elected body behind them that's making the final decision that's right uh the commission needs to stay focused on uh the standards for approval uh for the request in front of it so what does that mean that's you know if there's a variance requests the zoning code will have specific standards that the plan commission should consider uh when determining whether to support or recommend denial of a variance there's different standards for special use planned unit developments typically have much longer standards because it's a

more involved process so as long as the plan commission views the testimony that's provided at the hearing through the lens of those standards to determine whether or not the applicant is Meeting those standards uh the city is pretty well protected from from a lawsuit well one of the questions we get a lot from commissions and Commissioners uh in the work we do is they're always worried about setting a precedent so if we allow this variation or approve that special use haven't we set a precedent that allows the next one to come through that maybe we don't like we can't say no to it tell us a little bit about precedent there's a lot of of misconception around the the concept of of setting a a predent um the short answer is if if you approve a fence variance for um Joe Jackson you're not required to go ahead and approve the next fence variance that comes in for Sally Smith uh each request should be evaluated on its own merits its own facts and its own circumstances so um we'll take Joe Jackson's fence variance request say he comes in and asks to build an 8ft fence in a zoning District where only 6ft fences are allowed uh maybe that 8 foot fence is is warranted because there's a drive-thru uh on the property next door or there's an alley next door or there's a dog kennel next door now when Sally Smith comes in you know her house backs up to another residential property so there's there's differences factual differences between the two cases so the way that a a plan Comm can really protect itself from arguments uh of well you approved you Joe's variant you have to approve Sally's variant is to focus and drill down on the facts if you focus on the facts and testimony presented at the hearing it should become apparent um that there are differences between the two now that's the legal answer it's difficult to set a precedent by approving you know one variance uh there's also the the public perception or political angle as well now the public is not necessarily going to understand the Nuance between between

the two variance requests uh and this also you know reemphasizes the importance of making sure you clearly State on the record why you're supporting the variance what those facts are uh that way when someone comes in later you can say yes but you're not located next to a kennel or a drive-thru or an alley that has a lot of traffic okay that's great um we talked a lot about findings of fact uh as part of the deliberation um first of all what are they uh and second of all why are they important findings of fact are uh it's an analysis of the uh testimony and facts presented at the hearing so um it's all the reasons why or in some cases why not a proposal meets the zoning standards in the ordinance uh it's important to note that the findings of fact need to be based only on the testimony provided at the hearing or the meeting uh you're not supposed to take into account any outside factors uh that haven't been presented on the record um so they're important because it shows that the plan commission is doing its job and it's considering the appropriate legal factors when it makes its its recommendation um So the plan Commissioners again this is going to be a common theme that runs throughout our talk talk they need to be familiar with the standards uh and they need to view all testimony that's provided at the hearing through those standards and it's pretty common for Commissioners to actually have uh you know the standards written down on the Das next to them and that's that's part of uh part of having a quality staff report as well um and in terms of those findings of fact they ultimately uh become part of the record they ultimately find their way to the elected body that's making the decision who writes them staff secretary chair of the commission somebody randomly selected from the commission it it varies uh and and a lot of it depends on the capacity of the municipality both in terms of you know how much staff support they have um and

and things of that nature so there's a there's three common approaches um first uh it's a really good idea to have the applicant submit draft findings of fact uh with his application the applicant at the end of the day is the one asking for approval he's asking for Relief have him make his case in writing uh and and that serves a couple of purposes first it'll provide the commission with a general idea of what findings fact may be if they wanted to support the case and two it'll help at the applicant in the right mindset before the hearing because it's basically his presentation or his argument uh written down which is good it'll it'll make for a more fruitful hearing it'll get him focused on on those standards as well uh alternately uh the commission can draft its own findings that can happen during the meeting uh certainly work with clients that have uh worksheets basically that have uh here's here's standard number one and there's five or six lines uh below it and the commission after the public hearing is closed still during an open meeting will discuss uh what facts and what testimony presented at the hearing satisfy that factor and they'll walk through all of them that's a little bit more labor intensive it can make the meeting a bit longer but on the other hand it also helps show the public how the sausage is made so to speak you know it's it's very transparent it's very apparent what uh what the commission is doing there's no activity behind closed doors uh or alternately if it's a community with more resources you can have staff prepare findings either draft findings prior to the hearing or findings based on the testimony after the hearing so there's there's no one right way to do it um if you have staff they're typically you know the professionals the experts it's great to rely on them we certainly recognize that not every Community has a a professional Planner on staff but those findings written around those standards those are those are really kind of the heart of the the evaluation of the the testimony process aren't they they absolutely are uh and they'll be forwarded on to the city council uh for their consideration

prior to the vote U certainly if you end up in court the findings made by the plan commission are a consideration um so it's it's important and you should take time with them so you mentioned we talked about that there are standards that these findings of fact address and that sometimes there's more of them they're generally similar they're not the same in every Community um but sometimes you can said there's a lot of look for a planed unit development there might be more of them does the application have to meet all of these standards or just most of them the application needs to meet the standards uh it's not you know one out of three or two out of three it's not more more than not uh it's it's clear that the application needs to address each standard uh so that's part of the burden that applicants carry and that's why they need to be carefully consider uh the application they're bringing forth and whether or not they can State a claim substantiate support for uh for that proposal aren't some of those standards written where there's some room for interpretation I mean those standards are not is the building 6 fet tall the standards talk about there's adequate facilities or there's adequate capacity and there may be something about impact or trend of development those might be kind of fuzzy things uh is that true and what if you can make a case the other way yeah there's there's absolutely room for argument and that's that's why we have attorneys um there there they're not yes or no answers in many question in many cases it's it's a lot of um analysis based on the facts and circumstances related to the property uh which is what this is supposed to be about it's a hearing about what's going on on the property so with with that in mind what what should a commissioner keep in mind to be sure that as they're either asking questions or making their comments or deliberating amongst themselves what should the Commissioners keep in mind uh so that they're making a good case that they're helping form those findings of fact to all those standards well first and this is probably one of the more difficult things for Commissioners to do is you

need to be able to discern between relevant testimony and facts and what we'll call all the other noise um some of it's obvious personal tax obviously have no no place at a public hearing uh but there are a lot of you know other things that fall into a gray area where the commission you know especially if it's not a a particularly experienced one uh May place a a false emphasis on it so um an example of this uh I participated in a hearing where there was a drugstore that wanted to move into a neighborhood was a adjacent to a park and it was predominantly a single family residential area around there there was a a member of the public who stood up and testified and and she had through the Freedom of Information Act obtained copies of police reports uh for a drugstore located in a different Community not even the same drugstore and she proceeded to read pages and pages and this was years of police reports talking about how uh children were going to be kidnapped out of the parking lot of this this drug store and how uh rapists and pedophiles tend to frequent uh Pharmacy parking lots that's not relevant that's totally irrelevant uh and it's important important for the plan commission to recognize that and that also emphasizes the importance of having a a chair that has a pretty strong handle on meeting conduct uh because in that case she was you know gaveled uh gaveled quiet and said listen if you have a testimony that relates to the factors that the plan commission is required to consider please provide that but recognize that what you're talking about right now is is not necessarily relevant so the best advice really is to uh be familiar with those standards and and view the testimony through uh the lens of those you mentioned gaving uh a resident who's making a comment for and in terms of taking testimony and how much testimony and cutting off testimony is there a legal answer to the question of how much testimony is enough how much is too much

when can you cut people off should you cut people off generally a on the side of providing more testimony um it's painful it can make for some long nights you're going to see your family less but that's your job uh the the city council has the ability to uh curtail public comment uh largely out of necessity they're governing the entire municipality the plan commission's purpose is different they're there to take testimony they're there to listen to a wide range of claims some more relevant than others some clearly irrelevant they don't have to listen to those but if there's you know a degree of relevancy in what is being presented uh the plan commission is obligated to listen and and that that serves the purpose of um making sure they're doing a thorough job uh evaluating each proposal and giving it the time that it deserves and it also protects the community the city uh from lawsuits in the future that someone's due process rights were cut off uh folks have a right to be heard it's we have public notice requirements that's why we have open meetings uh and that's kind of the Bedrock principle of democratic government okay that's that's great so that's just part of the process yes um in terms of the operations of a a commission or a plan commission uh I know a lot of them have got their own bylaws their own set of rules and procedures is that a requirement do they have to have those and if they don't is it a good idea to have them it's a good idea to have them and and laws can vary uh do vary I should say from state to state um the bylaws are important because it it it's really the playbook for how the plan commission is supposed to function so it it talks about membership it talks about obligation to attend meetings it talks about conduct of meetings um you know a variant of Robert's Rules of Order is commonly used by a lot of plan commissions but U you don't have to use Robert rules Roberts Rules of Order wholesale you can make changes is really a good idea because Robert's Rules of Order is really intended to govern uh deliberative bodies that are in constant session and

plan commissions aren't they hold a meeting once or twice a month and and they're done uh so the bylaws establish the ground rules uh they can establish limits uh within reason uh on public comment as well so if the situation comes up where the plan commission needs to limit public comment um and there are bylaws that have been adopted by uh the community that's a a stronger legal position if you ever need to defend it sounds to me like a lot of these rules a lot of this structure really is ultimately to the benefit of the commission so that if you have a bylaw rule that says you know we're going to try and um end the meeting by 11 o' or we're not going to start a new case after a certain time uh and that you've got to stick with these findings of fact and consider those that that this structure can really be very helpful to the staff and and the Commission in managing what can be an emotional situation that's exactly right it's it's the rules of the road uh and it establishes expectations and U you know to your comment about ending meetings at a certain time uh you know we've all been in situations where we've sat through the small hours the morning uh listening to deliberations for Commissioners who have been on the dis for you know 5 six seven 8 hours and um you know it's hard to make good decisions when you've been sitting up there and it's 2:00 in the morning a legal perspective you might not make the best decision I would agree with that um so the motion the way motions are made a lot of times you see Commissioners get a little bit hung up in in how they do this one of the key understandings though is that motions are always supposed to be made in the affirmative is that right and tell us why yeah that that's correct uh and and an example will help uh highlight why or how this can go wrong because it can go very wrong so imagine You' got a controversial land use proposal say it's a a glue fact uh you know it's it's loud it's noisy uh it smells and and they want to locate next to a park in the middle of a residential neighborhood so you know basically the the least consistent land use you can imagine uh with children

playing uh in the property next door in the backyard uh and at some point during the hearing it it becomes very apparent that everyone in the audience is opposed to this other than the applicant and one of the Commissioners is just fed up and he you know in a moment of passion says you know what I'm going to make a motion that we deny this proposal so and the motion seconded so the motion on the floor is now a motion to deny so it's it's in the negative so the role is called and and everyone starts voting those voting yes on that motion are are voting to kill the proposal those voting no on that motion are voting to support it now take a step back think about a referendum question or anytime you step into The Ballot Box uh says Michael do you support a tax increase to pay for constru ing a new Village Hall your yes vote means yes in the circumstance of this plan commission that just stated a negative motion your yes vote would mean no so that's confusing and it also confuses the folks in the audience who are sitting there watching an entire dis of people vote Yes To Kill a project um and this goes on it's not just an immediate concern because the meeting minutes from a legal perspective when something goes wrong and there is a lawsuit later the minutes are very important it's frequently the only copy of the record what happened at the hearing uh and the minutes can be very confusing when it says motion to deny you know and it says who voted yes and you got yeses and you got knows um I've seen circumstances too where you've had a negative motion stated and a commissioner has realized after the fact either at that meeting or a subsequent meeting saying Hey I meant to vote the other way so then you've got another procedural hurdle and and it you know it not only confuses the plan commission it makes the community look bad and disorganized in certain respects you want to come across as looking professional um so all all this is easily dispatched by just stating motions in the positive so even if you hate the glue factory you make a motion

to approve the glue factory and let everybody vote no all set okay um that Glue Factory now let's take something that could get approved uh may have some conditions placed on it as part of the approval and what we see is that sometimes conditions are things that get talked about so one of the Commissioners might say we need better Landscaping over there um but that's not part of the motion it's not part of the approval it might be in the minutes um but ultimately that notion of hey we need more landscaping that's not really binding it's only binding if it's done how if if you want it to be binding it needs to be in the motion uh and it will only be binding if the uh village board adopts an ordinance that expressly includes that condition so if you feel strongly as a commissioner about a specific item whether it's landscaping or uh the color of the building or sign what have you uh your motion to approve the development should State I I make a motion to approve the development subject to uh Bob the Builder painting his building purple um otherwise it's not legally enforcable uh otherwise the public who attended the meeting and heard the commissioner speak about the purple building will likely think that the building's supposed to be purple and and will probably end up calling Village Hall when it ends up being painted yellow um I I think I think a lot of planners have been in a situation where a meeting had to be changed or rescheduled or a case removed because um public notice was not properly made um so there are these legal terms that we hear a lot we hear about public notice and open meetings um and they seem to just be very controlling in what goes on can you explain those Concepts a little and why it really is important to pay attention to those sure this is the uh the public process is quite possibly the most important component uh

of of the entire zoning review um government's credibility is largely reliant on how responsive and accountable it is to the public uh and the zoning process in Illinois and elsewhere uh requires open public hearings uh to be conducted for zoning proposals this provides the public an opportunity to come out and express either their support or dissatisfaction with the proposal uh and it allows a a full record to be built without a public process you get a lot of Palace Intrigue frankly like there was a meeting behind closed doors smoke filled or not uh and these decisions were made and I didn't have an opportunity to speak and that really contradicts what you the basic principles of responsible government are uh so in order to build credibility in government in order to lend credibility to the decision that will ultim ultimately be made by the city council uh you need to have big tent process where everyone's invited in and and folks can come out and share their views about it so I want to turn a little bit to uh the the legal elements of being a commissioner things that the Commissioners have to know um what kind of Ethics rules are there that are Bindings that are binding on Commissioners the ethics rules that's a good question and the ethics rules vary uh from state to state but there's some certain common elements that that run throughout them um for example Illinois has has what's commonly known as the G ban act uh and and it as the name implies uh prohibits Commissioners from accepting gifts from prohibited sources now I'm not going to sit here and lecture you on the specifics of the law and all of the elements because we don't have time and you don't have patience uh but the a lot of this is common sense so U an example if you're a commissioner and someone who is uh before the commission whether it's a developer or your neighbor who wants to um get a

variance to reduce his side guard back offers to buy you a new car or you know something expensive or something anything really significant uh and that seems out of the ordinary you should probably think about it uh so there's a couple important things to know here a um acknowledge that there are laws that govern conduct for plan Commissioners the typical plan commissioner is not going to spend time digging through statute books to understand what each of those laws are but but just know they're out there and and exercise some common sense uh b as a Comm commissioner you're not an island unto yourself you have a support network uh typically there's staff uh typically there's an attorney if you find yourself in a situation where you don't feel comfortable or something doesn't smell right um talk to staff talk to the attorney and they'll they'll provide you with with counsel through it uh it can be a little bit awkward in the moment when somebody offers you something and you say hey you know what um I really appreciate it but you know I don't know if this is appropriate uh I'm going to talk with staff let me get back to you that's typically all it takes uh and and it can keep you out of out of trouble and it can keep the community out of trouble too because what you really want to avoid is the Spectre of impropriety uh because that can Tain both the proceedings that are before the plan commission whether it's a specific development proposal uh and it can also implicate just The credibility of government in general uh you there's there's a lot of folks out there who think that government's on the take and and that's not the case in the vast majority of circumstances but proceeding cautiously um understanding that there are laws that implicate your conduct and and realizing um that you have resources that you can rely on uh will get you a long way kind of related to that is the notion of a conflict of interest so a lot of times you hear Commissioners talk about well they have a conflict or do they have a conflict and sometimes they recuse themselves from a matter so can you tell us what constitutes a conflict of interest and when somebody should recuse themselves sure sure it the term

conflict of interest gets bandied about particularly in the public uh more than it should but there are situations where there are legitimate conflicts of interests and Commissioners should be aware of those situations um first and an example will probably uh be most helpful here because the conflict statutes do vary from state to state uh but take for example a plan commissioner who owns a property that's located next to a car dealer luxury car dealer uh big beautiful cars and uh the car dealer approaches the plan commissioner and says hey we're thinking about EXP expanding our dealership we're going to sell even more cars this is great for the town increased tax revenue everybody's going to be happy we think you're going to love our beautiful dealership there's glass windows and and everything else uh the commissioner says yeah you know that sounds great so they enter into a purchase and sale agreement that's contingent on getting zoning approval the developer then comes before the plan commission and asks for his rezoning uh in order to build his new dealership plan commissioner sitting up on the dis does he have a conflict it it's a pretty obvious example that absolutely is a conflict of interest uh he has a contractual interest in the property that is part of the development proposal so it's it's not okay for him to cast a vote on that that undermines his ability to think in the public interest and keep the public interest and those zoning factors in mind because no matter how hard he tries he's going to have that dollar value stuck in the back of his head that he wants to get for selling the property that's a clear conflict of interest uh those situations if they do come up nine times out of 10 probably more than nine times out of 10 that commissioner is going to recuse himself um those are are pretty obvious there are other situations which fall into more of a gray area so same example uh but say there's no zoning contingency involved in the contract say the luxury dealer just buys the property outright and then comes back uh for approval a year or 18 months later and that

proposal comes before the plan commission and that commissioner who 18 months ago sold the property to the car dealer is sitting up there there's an open question as to whether or not it's okay for him to vote on it uh in a lot of States it's okay uh there's not a contractual interest uh so there's not a clear conflict of interest that's the legal answer and the legal analysis based on the statute but as a commissioner you also have to keep in mind the Optics and the appearance of impropriety how would it look if a resident or the paper found out that that commissioner sold the property and then during the meeting was a vocal advocate for the development uh and It ultimately went through and got approved um so there's a there's a public perception component of it too and just because there's not a a legal conflict of interest um it's a good idea for Commissioners to keep the public perception in mind and if you think there's an issue um you can always recuse yourself there's absolutely nothing wrong with that what about there are times where people might think there's a conflict of interest but there really isn't so if the church you're part of is coming for a special use before you or your Country Club comes before the commission um or if there's a rezoning for an entire zoning District in the downtown and you happen to own a property in the downtown um you're connected to it but are those necessarily a conflict of interest not necessarily it's you really have to take a closer look uh and this is this is where this is where the public and and sometimes you know the media that's reporting on it can get it wrong you end up with s sensationalized headlines of you know commissioner on the take he's voting for his own self-interest uh you really need to look at the specific facts and circumstances like an example that that comes up frequently say you know Apple everybody loves Apple an Apple store is coming to town uh and uh Michael you're a commissioner and and you own Apple stock uh and you know what you voted to support that Apple Store uh

that's not necessarily a conflict now if you own 10% of Apple's stock that probably would be a conflict because that's I'm sorry to hear that uh that would be pretty oppos to a controlling interest uh but most people don't own 10% of Apple's stock they own some shares and and they have it you know set aside for retirement or what have you uh so the facts are important and the analysis is important and you know it never hurts to in these situations uh to state on the record um listen I I'm a parishioner of this church uh but I'm not involved in the business management or Affairs of this church uh and and I feel comfortable voting on it and you might kept some fla from some from some people the public but a lot of them are going to appreciate uh that you've been upfront and you've explained your relationship and uh and explained that there's no more Palace inry going on here and I'll go back to the advice you gave with the last question we had about ethics is if there's a question about a conflict of interest contact your staff contact your corporation counsel always always and and that's another really good point I know a lot of communities don't have uh Corporation counsel at the meetings but uh they certainly can help and this is one of the situations they can uh there are legal issues that will come up that will inevitably be outside of the chairman or the commission's comfort zone uh and having legal councel there can really help you navigate those Waters uh in the most sensitive of situation a meeting that's televised or in front of a bunch of your neighbors and Friends uh so one more thing about the Commissioners that's got to be important because I think it's Latin this idea of expar communication or talking to people outside of the meeting uh why is that an issue and what should be avoided there the whole purpose of the plan commission and the public meeting process is to have these deliberations in the public uh there's nothing to hide here everything is upfront uh the decision the recommendation that the plan commission makes is based only on the testimony and

evidence presented at the hearing U so there's no hide the ball uh everything that you need to see is is in front of you exp parte Communications uh are when a an applicant uh or an interested party uh lobbies a plan commissioner uh or city C behind the scenes so they they invite you out for dinner uh they they show up at your door and say hey I bought you a cup of coffee let's sit down let's sit down and talk now this is going to happen you're a public official uh a lot of these meetings are televised on TV in some communities uh people are going to understand that you're serving your community and that's a great thing and as but as a result of them uh being aware of your service they're going to go to you if they think there's an issue that you can help with um you're not going to run and hide in the bushes or if you see Joe your neighbor coming down the street you don't run across the street to avoid him that's it's not realistic but the best advice is you want to keep all these discussions in the public so if someone comes up to you and says hey I really want to talk to you about this development proposal say thanks you know I really appreciate it but you know as a plan commissioner we're supposed to hold these hearings please come to the hearing we'd love to hear what you have to say that's the best way to make a difference and your input really matters if you can't make it send a letter perhaps or an email staff abely yeah absolutely um and and staff is you bring up another good point with staff come to the meeting or you know you can also direct folks to staff say hey if you have input about the proposal staff's really managing this they're doing the whole you know the public input prior to the meeting so you know call you know Sally the planner or send an email to this email address and give them your thoughts those thoughts will be shared with the commission those thoughts will be shared with the city council your voice will be heard um it just provides structure around the the communication process and it's it also provides a barrier uh protecting the commission from you know allegations that there's something nefarious going on goes back to what you said before about the Optics it doesn't look like there's something going on everything's out front yeah yeah exactly and and you

know one last thought on this too if you do happen to have a conversation with someone uh and you know these say it's a friend and these conversations can happen you start on one topic and you shift to another and he brings up a relevant point about a development proposal that's before the commission disclose it during the public hearing say hey you know what on Sunday uh I Joe over we were watching the Bears game and uh he brought up a point on this that I think is relevant and I want to share it with the public um it tells them that the conversation happened it puts it on the record it shows that there's nothing to hide uh so there there are options to deal with it other than finding a bush to jump into and I think that's great advice because I think a lot of times Commissioners are uncomfortable with this idea of disclosure letting people know what happened but you know as we used to warn people you don't want Joe to come and stand at the podium and go hey when I was talking to Greg commissioner Greg about this the other he thought it was a fine idea so it really there's again it's another one of these ways that the structure of the system really helps the commissioner protects the Commissioners they do their job that's exactly right it's uh being being called out at a public hearing for a private conversation is is definitely a red face moment absolutely all right well GRE thank you for sharing your insights on the legal aspects of the commission function and we thank you for your time it's been a pleasure thank you Michael thank you is Chip still is there any more is there any discussion about what we just saw anybody have any questions or concerns comments did you have anything that you wanted to add chip uh I watched it earlier today and I watched it again now I thought it was very well done I thought the

focus for boards like the planning board on the standards before you I thought was was a very good thing to touch upon um I also thought uh the common sense approach to uh conflicts of interest was a good thing to raise that's what Trey and I are here for um to answer questions if something doesn't feel right um it's best to reach out uh early um and one of the things that he he he went over fairly quickly but in my opinion and in my experience the larger issue is the appearance of a conflict rather than the actual conflict I think seven eight times out of 10 there's no conflict but it sure looks like one and that sometimes comes back to to bite people but uh no I thought it was very informative I thought it was a good thing to uh to have the board watch I felt that it was very helpful as well in our small community because conversations are going to happen if you're out in the community at all and they do know who we are I was surprised the other day when somebody said well yeah you're on the board the plan board and I'm like oh I didn't even realize you knew that CU I don't broadcast it usually but anyway I I found it very helpful I know we we've discussed this previously chip and I don't remember if you were the attorney yet the example I could think of is a couple months ago we had the issue with somebody want to that wanted to approve the pool in that area where there was a the eight tow houses or whatever they

were in there and and I know I went and thought it was on our agenda and I drove by there just to see what the situation looked like is that something that you would recommend doing or is that should be avoided or what how would you cuz it was just like you know I was trying to say well let me just see what this looks like but is that something that should be avoided well I mean in in in my experience um site visits have been a fairly common practice the issue becomes when you interact with someone um anybody can view the site um it is the the substance of the application I don't recommend doing a deep dive into further information because you want to hear what the applicant has to say um I don't know what the practice of this particular board has been with site visits before I I defer to Deb probably on that well was it a situation we we only have one street going to where you live and you have to pass the site you can't it's hard to miss it it's hard to miss it unless you good drive off the road but yeah and that is is part of the nature of being on a board in small town and and you know that can't cut against you because you do have to drive past it right when you have an interaction with someone and allow them to bend your ear that's when you have a choice there right you don't really have a choice if you've got to drive past the site to try to get to where you're going there's no no no way to really get around it so so if

the decision was uh say for a variant or uh public if it was quasi judicial then certainly at the beginning if there if they were approached and that there was a a a start of a conversation or whatever then that would be a time where uh in the beginning interrogatories that the member could say uh yes I did I did go to the site spoke with him briefly uh let him know that you know I was I was on the board and that I didn't feel you know that I had to stop the conversation and just want to hear the facts at the meeting um and hopefully that you know hopefully that's what is said but uh with typically I have always uh encouraged planning board members Board of adjustment members to do a site visit not to you know to drive by just to where you know put their eye on it to where that they get uh the grasp of what is being proposed and I think that it may also help that that whenever they go out there that that may spark some questions that whenever they when it comes to the actual uh application being presented that they're able to ask those questions and something something that I may have missed or that you know I didn't think of so I've got you know a whole panel of other individuals that are also looking at the application to see okay did have they met all the requirements is there any conflict uh or any safety issue that has not been addressed right yeah I agree with that

any more discussion on anything anybody's concerned about okay could I get a motion on adjourning make a motion to adjourn I'll second it all those in favor I okay meeting adjourned at 7:04 great a good evening thank you thank you for