Had an interesting conversation with the head of the local planning board the other day. He is a volunteer and not paid staff. I was expressing my displeasure over some of the idiotic rules they have.
It would seem the situation is worse than I thought. I knew the planner is an idiot. What I didn't know is exactly how wide spread the brain rot extended.
For example, we were discussing a section of the rules this person wants revised. Here is a portion of the code:
Where they define Residential Subdivision.
The following shall not be included within this definition nor be subject to the requirements of this chapter.
Ok, that seems plain enough. One of the exceptions is listed like this:
The division of land solely among members of the same family...
This person wants this exception removed from the rules but, according to him, removing the exception would not change any current requirements.
He went on to explain to me that under the rules as they current exist the fact that family transactions are exempted from the rules did not mean that these sorts of transactions didn't have to fully comply with all the rules.
When asked what rules applied to family transactions he pointed to these very same rules saying that they had to be complied with fully.
Me: You mean these rules that state that they do not apply to family transactions?
Him: Yes, they still have to comply fully with all these rules.
Me: So in the rules where it says that these rules do not apply to these situations it doesn't really mean that?
Him: We do not interpret the rule to mean they do not apply.
Me: So in the definitions where it says "The following shall not be included within this definition nor be subject to the requirements of this chapter." that doesn't really mean anything?
Him: Correct. They still have to comply fully with all the rules.
Oh the joys of dealing with regulators.
Larry P
That's funny. I've had exactly the same conversation. It turns out that exempt really means exempt.
But; a whole bunch of time and effort went into getting the planners to understand that word exempt.
Good luck!
Him: Why are you pounding your head on my desk?
Me: To ease the pain!
Have you ran across another "individual" we both know?
No doubt you know of whom I speak.
I now recall the name but shall reserve than on account of public decency.
...and they don't care, because they know that it takes too much time and costs too much money to take them to court and get a judge to explain what "does not apply" means. But if he thinks the regulations apply anyway, then why does he want to change the regulation? I think at some level he has to know that his interpretation is silly on its' face.
I hate lawyers but we have actually had pretty good luck with planning commissions backing down under the threat of a lawsuit. It needs to be done a lot more. In the overall scheme of things it is not that expensive.
One example, we had a developer, long story, he did not want to meet the sewer requirements. He had his lawyer present the plat to the planning commission. He stood up, he said something about this simple..."If you do not pass this plat, we are going to sue you, both as a group, and individually" and sat back down. The planning commission passed the plat with no commment. Took all of about 5 minutes. A lot of planning commissions would not have folded that easy. A lot went on behind closed doors. Going to city commissioners and mayors can be effective in leaning hard on these....employees...if they are pro development. We have had that happen too.
My experience in WV has been a bit different. I was involved in several projects back in the late '90's and early 2000's where developers sued the planning commission. It was not over satisifying a regulation. It was either over an interpretation of what a regulation meant or the imposition of a requirement that did not exist in writing in the ordinance. In other words they just made it up on the fly.
It every case, I am aware of, the land owner won. But the courts refused to hold the planning commissioners or staff individually responsible, refused to award attorney's fees, and refused to award punitive damages.
Each case went to the WV Supreme Court, appealed either by the developer or the planning commission. Each case took a minimum of three years and the attorney's fees for the developer was well over $100,000 and in one case was nearly $400,000.
The developer's looked at it as a cost of doing business, but those were in boom times. Now every project, and there are very few, is marginal and operating on a "shoe string". It is no longer affordable either in time or money to litigate. The pc has not changed it behavior. It still makes it up as it goes along and basically say "..so sue us." The developer acquiesces because it is just not worth it. This encourages the behavior. In my opinion, until the planning commissions and the staffs are held individually responsible this behavior will not change.
>... until the planning commissions and the staffs are held individually responsible this behavior will not change.
Exactly right. If we screw up, we could lose our livelihood. When they screw up or decide to break the law on purpose, there are no consequences.
Larry P
No suprise. I told you so
Local governments now see land surveys as a vehicle for "compliance." NC has this disease BAD. I have said it before and you will see it as true or you will remember me saying it once it applies to you:
"Local goverment reviews will be the largest problem our profession will have from now on. Planners are NOT your friends, their job is reliant on local gov red tape that they manufacture as they see fit." Pin Cushion
