{"id":20095,"date":"2013-07-30T17:04:23","date_gmt":"2013-07-30T21:04:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/raleighpublicrecord.org\/?p=20095"},"modified":"2013-07-30T17:04:23","modified_gmt":"2013-07-30T21:04:23","slug":"planning-commission-recusals-surged-in-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/news\/2013\/07\/30\/planning-commission-recusals-surged-in-2012\/","title":{"rendered":"Planning Commission Recusals Surged in 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

Volunteer members of the city\u2019s Planning Commission<\/a> recused themselves from nearly 30 percent of the cases brought before them in 2012, a significant increase over a previous five-year average of 10 percent, a case-by-case analysis of Commission minutes by the Raleigh Public Record shows.<\/p>\n

The first six months of 2013 have seen the percentage of recusals fall back to previous-year levels, and the implementation of the new Unified Development Ordinance plan in September will likely cause it to drop even further as the Commission moves away from hearing site-specific zoning and land use cases and focuses more on long-range planning and development for the city.<\/p>\n

Planning Commission members, who reviewed about 120 zoning and site plan cases last year, are required by state law and city guidelines to recuse themselves for a variety of reasons \u2013 a familial, business or personal interest in a case, for example \u2013 and in practice they tend to err on the side of caution.<\/p>\n

\"recusals\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Exceeding the Guidelines<\/strong>
\nIsabel Mattox, a land-use attorney who joined the Commission in 2010 and now serves as its chair, was responsible for 62 percent of the 2012 recusals. Mattox explained that she recuses herself not only from cases she may have worked on personally, but ones on which close colleagues may have worked on as well.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s useful to have people on board, the Commission that have some experience, some expertise or knowledge in certain areas,\u201d Mattox said. \u201cTherefore, if you have people working in that area, generally, they\u2019re going to have some cases where they\u2019re going to recuse themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n

Steve Schuster, an architect with Clearscapes who also sits on the Commission and whose recusals accounted for 20 percent of the overall 2012 numbers, agreed with Mattox\u2019 assertion.<\/p>\n

\u201cObviously we all subscribe to and are committed to following the city\u2019s policies on conflict of interest,\u201d Schuster said. \u201cSo I think you\u2019ll find for many of the commission members, they recuse themselves often beyond what the city\u2019s policy would mandate.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"2012recusalsbymember\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Schuster said for example that even though he is heading up Clearscape\u2019s design of the new Union Station, he will recuse himself when the case comes before the Commission and have one of his partners make the presentation.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would appear to me, if I\u2019m on the Commission and making the presentation, that it will carry more weight than it should,\u201d he said. \u201cThis will remove me even a step further away from having any influence over what the Planning Commission might do.\u201d<\/p>\n

He added that members actively seek to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf there\u2019s even a potential, I tend to recuse myself, I don\u2019t want there to be a possibility of someone saying, \u2018That\u2019s inappropriate,\u2019\u201d Schuster said.<\/p>\n

Ken Bowers, the city\u2019s deputy planning commissioner, explained that a slight uptick in recusals means simply that the commission is doing its job.<\/p>\n

Members, he said, \u201chave to weight their business interests against their service on the commission.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt can have an impact on their business because they can\u2019t represent their clients – my guess is it probably has a negative impact,\u201d Bowers said.<\/p>\n

\"commission_cases\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Serving the Community<\/strong>
\nNine of the 10 members of the Planning Commission are appointed by City Council, with one appointed by the Wake County Commission. They serve for periods of two years and can not serve more than three consecutive terms. While they make recommendations on issues pertaining to zoning issues and site plans, it is ultimately up to the City Council to grant final approval.<\/p>\n

Eric Braun was a partner at the law firm K&L Gates and taught municipal law before joining the Commission earlier this year. Although he was diagnosed in 2001 with multiple sclerosis, Braun continued to work through 2010, when his doctor told him he needed to quit working and focus on his health.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019d been doing some community volunteering when an opportunity opened up on the commission,\u201d Braun said. \u201cI used to represent local governments, I\u2019ve represented developers, I kind of have a broad range of experience.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m not ever going be able to work again, so I don\u2019t have any allegiances to anyone,\u201d he added, explaining why his role on the Commission is somewhat unique.<\/p>\n

Although cases have come before the Commission on which he had past involvement, Braun has yet to recuse himself and said some members have a tendency to do so in situations where they are not legally required to.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe law technically requires people to recuse themselves in a pretty narrow set of circumstances, but there\u2019s nothing wrong with being more cautious,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think there\u2019s more pressure to be more \u2026 conservative out there now, because there\u2019s so much information available, someone could look back and say \u2018You represented these people, you should have recused yourself,\u2019\u201d Braun said, echoing the sentiments expressed by Mattox and Schuster.<\/p>\n

The only time recusals could become a problem, Braun added, was if there were so many that it reduced decorum and the body was unable to conduct business. In the 10 years of minutes reviewed by the Record, there were only 10 instances in which more than one Commissioner was recused from a particular case. Even in those instances, there were still enough members to vote and make recommendations on the cases.<\/p>\n

The meetings, held at 9 a.m. on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, often run long. Braun said member absences \u2013 around 180 in 10 years \u2014 and early dismissals \u2014 averaging around six per year since September 2003 \u2014 are more likely to impact decorum. He could not recall an instance where a case had been pushed back due to a lack of available members. Data reviewed by the Record supports this.<\/p>\n

\"recusals_taken\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A New Role for the Commission<\/strong>
\nStarting Sept. 1, all new site and zoning plans will go through a new process where their cases are heard by the Board of Adjustment, as determined by the Unified Development Ordinance plan.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re returning the Planning Commission more to its roots,\u201d the planning department\u2019s Bowers said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe city charter language talks about the commission taking a long-range view of the city and developing plans and ordinances to implement that long-range plan.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur commission has been so consumed with the twin duties of recommending zoning and having approval over certain site plans that [long-range planning] tended to get lost in the shuffle,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Bowers explained that in a rapidly growing city such as Raleigh, it was important to create strong and clear standards in the code, so that applicants \u2013 developers, architects, residents \u2013 would have a clearer picture of the rules, regulations and requirements necessary to move forward.<\/p>\n

The new policies would also largely remove City Council from having to make decisions on individual cases \u2013 which Braun sees as a positive step in the right direction.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think having the Council make decisions on specific projects; they\u2019re supposed to be made on a technical basis, do they meet the code or not, it\u2019s not supposed to be a subjective decision,\u201d Braun said.<\/p>\n

He added that political pressures, particularly in the lead-up to an election, can make it difficult for an elected body to make objective decisions on zoning and land-use issues that may directly affect their constituents.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you have every specific project going before City Council, they get bogged down in the details. Instead they should be looking at bigger-picture projects like transit or bond issues or big ticket items,\u201d he said, \u201cNot whether there\u2019s going to be another convenience store on some corner.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bowers said the changes implemented by the Unified Development Ordinance were not in any way a reflection on the work being done by the City Council or the Planning Commission, but rather were a way of streamlining the development process and making it easier for outsiders unfamiliar with the local political landscape to come in and make their voices heard.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think, in general, our planning commission has done an excellent job,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A review of 10 years\u2019 worth of Planning Commission minutes shows that members recuse themselves from about 10 percent of the cases brought before the group, although this number may drop when the Unified Development Ordinance takes effect in September.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24061,"featured_media":20099,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[15],"tags":[1863],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20095"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24061"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20095"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20095\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/20099"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}