Planning Board weighs Narkewicz proposal
September 11 ,2009
Planners ask council to keep permit
authority
By Chad Cain, Daily Hampshire Gazette
By Chad Cain, Daily Hampshire Gazette
NORTHAMPTON - The Planning Board Thursday decided
against recommending a proposed ordinance change
that would move special permit granting authority
for the city's landfill expansion under its wing.
Instead, in a 4-3 vote, the board forwarded its own plan to the Ordinance Committee that calls for amending the heavy public use ordinance to make landfill expansion a legislative decision, rather than a zoning decision that requires a special permit. Voting in favor of this "legislative option" were members Stephen Gilson, Kenneth Jodrie, George Kohout and Jennifer Dieringer.
The other three members - Marilyn Richards, Katharine Baker and Francis Johnson - backed the ordinance amendment presented by Ward 4 City Councilor David J. Narkewicz that would transfer the council's special permit granting authority for any heavy public use to the Planning Board.
They argued that the idea would streamline the approval process and free the City Council to discuss the issue with residents. But supporters of the other option said it would also allow councilors to discuss the expansion because a special permit would no longer be required.
The votes taken Thursday night at a joint meeting of the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee were merely recommendations to the latter body, which consists of Ward 3 City Councilor Robert C. Reckman, Narkewicz and At-Large City Councilor Michael R. Bardsley. That committee must decide which proposal to forward to the City Council. The committee meets again Monday.
Both proposals would enable councilors to lift a gag order prohibiting them from discussing the controversial issue with residents, which planners and the Ordinance Committee agree is a primary goal of the ordinance change.
"We're itching to talk about this," said Reckman. "We're trying to get out of this box so that we can talk to people."
Narkewicz agreed. While he's not wedded to his proposal, Narkewicz tried to allay the concerns of some Planning Board members who are reluctant to rule on a controversial political issue that they say goes beyond their purview.
"My goal was not to push the decision off onto you," said Narkewicz. "I believe it is the City Council's responsibility to make the larger policy decisions."
At the same time, councilors are in a "strange box," he said. Under the city's current rules, the council must become a quasi-judicial body in order to vote on a special permit for the landfill's expansion. Because of this role, councilors are following the advice of city attorneys and not talking about the landfill with residents.
Current rules also state that the Planning Board is responsible for ruling only on the expansion's site plan, which would happen before the council rules on a special permit. Under both plans, the Planning Board retains its site plan approval authority. Several board members expressed concern with the legislative option because the appeal process is unclear.
Narkewicz challenged the notion the Planning Board would bear the burden of the entire decision, especially given that the Department of Public Works would first have to come to the City Council for money to draw up designs for the site plan. At that point, the council would engage in a vigorous discussion about the landfill expansion, he said.
While they understood the predicament councilors are in and sought ways to alleviate the gag order - including an idea that would allow the council to vote on the special permit before the Planning Board takes on site plan process - a majority of the Planning Board remained uncomfortable with the idea of having to rule on both the special permit and the site plan.
"The policy decision needs to remain with the City Council in a larger way other than appropriation," said Kohout.
They also noted that even though councilors would be free to discuss the issue with their constituents under Narkewicz's plan, the ultimate decision would lie with them instead of the councilors. And they would be barred from discussing the issue, just as the council is now.
Instead, in a 4-3 vote, the board forwarded its own plan to the Ordinance Committee that calls for amending the heavy public use ordinance to make landfill expansion a legislative decision, rather than a zoning decision that requires a special permit. Voting in favor of this "legislative option" were members Stephen Gilson, Kenneth Jodrie, George Kohout and Jennifer Dieringer.
The other three members - Marilyn Richards, Katharine Baker and Francis Johnson - backed the ordinance amendment presented by Ward 4 City Councilor David J. Narkewicz that would transfer the council's special permit granting authority for any heavy public use to the Planning Board.
They argued that the idea would streamline the approval process and free the City Council to discuss the issue with residents. But supporters of the other option said it would also allow councilors to discuss the expansion because a special permit would no longer be required.
The votes taken Thursday night at a joint meeting of the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee were merely recommendations to the latter body, which consists of Ward 3 City Councilor Robert C. Reckman, Narkewicz and At-Large City Councilor Michael R. Bardsley. That committee must decide which proposal to forward to the City Council. The committee meets again Monday.
Both proposals would enable councilors to lift a gag order prohibiting them from discussing the controversial issue with residents, which planners and the Ordinance Committee agree is a primary goal of the ordinance change.
"We're itching to talk about this," said Reckman. "We're trying to get out of this box so that we can talk to people."
Narkewicz agreed. While he's not wedded to his proposal, Narkewicz tried to allay the concerns of some Planning Board members who are reluctant to rule on a controversial political issue that they say goes beyond their purview.
"My goal was not to push the decision off onto you," said Narkewicz. "I believe it is the City Council's responsibility to make the larger policy decisions."
At the same time, councilors are in a "strange box," he said. Under the city's current rules, the council must become a quasi-judicial body in order to vote on a special permit for the landfill's expansion. Because of this role, councilors are following the advice of city attorneys and not talking about the landfill with residents.
Current rules also state that the Planning Board is responsible for ruling only on the expansion's site plan, which would happen before the council rules on a special permit. Under both plans, the Planning Board retains its site plan approval authority. Several board members expressed concern with the legislative option because the appeal process is unclear.
Narkewicz challenged the notion the Planning Board would bear the burden of the entire decision, especially given that the Department of Public Works would first have to come to the City Council for money to draw up designs for the site plan. At that point, the council would engage in a vigorous discussion about the landfill expansion, he said.
While they understood the predicament councilors are in and sought ways to alleviate the gag order - including an idea that would allow the council to vote on the special permit before the Planning Board takes on site plan process - a majority of the Planning Board remained uncomfortable with the idea of having to rule on both the special permit and the site plan.
"The policy decision needs to remain with the City Council in a larger way other than appropriation," said Kohout.
They also noted that even though councilors would be free to discuss the issue with their constituents under Narkewicz's plan, the ultimate decision would lie with them instead of the councilors. And they would be barred from discussing the issue, just as the council is now.