I know applicants, particularly land owners that are not represented and certainly neighbors, whether in opposition or not, appreciate knowing how each individual application will be heard. That is, how long for the presentation? Does that include supporters? How long for the opposition? Is there a rebuttal allowed?

Ultimately, for both the applicant (and supporters) and the opposition, setting the ground rules and sticking too them go a long way towards the feeling that everyone is treated fairly and had a fair hearing. Nothing frustrates me more, in representing applicants, when I have no opportunity to speak after my presentation, but time and again the opposition continues to stand up and speak after the case has been returned to the hearing body.

Agendas should be written in plain language that anyone can understand. If people are attending who may have never participated or attended a meeting of a particular group it is helpful to outline verbally what to expect during the evening. At a public meeting held for the purposes of receiving public comment we have a preamble that is read by the Chair that goes something like this;

"This meeting is being held for the purposes of obtaining public input on XXXXX. As Chairman of the meeting it will be my job to ensure that the comments at this hearing are focused on this application and that we don't stray onto other issues. The Regional Board is here to listen to your comments and will not be discussing the information during the public hearing. The Regional District cannot accept additional information after closure of this public meeting. Everyone here should feel free to speak and everyone who wishes to speak will be provided an opportunity. We will start with a brief presentation by staff and then we will invite comments from the floor."

After the staff presentation, if there are a lot of people the Chair will add; "There are quite a few people here tonight and in the interests of allowing everyone here an opportunity to speak this evening we will start by limiting the speakers to about 5 minutes each until everyone here tonight has a chance to provide their comments. After everyone has had a chance to be heard and we have gone through the room once, those who have already spoken can come up again and provide any additional information or comments."

At the close of the meeting we outline what will happen next; "Thank you for coming. The meeting is now closed. The minutes will be available at YYYYYY, The Regional Board will consider the application at their next meeting etc.

I'd forgotten how bad our Dearborn County Planning agendas were as recently as 5 years ago. They had one line for each item -- listing the applicant and what they wanted -- not even where the property was located. Sometimes there were 20 items on the agenda! Now we have a format that is standardized and detailed. The cut off to get on the agenda is about a month ahead leaving mailing time so that the members have 10-14 days to review the materials in their packets.

We use the time at the end of the meeting for general comments. It makes sure that the planned items get heard in a timely manner.

We just started using sign in cards two months ago for people wanting to speak at the meeting. It helps the transcriptionist as well in getting correct spellings. If someone decides during the meeting that they want to speak, they can fill out a card and hand it in when they come to the podium.

If general public comment on non-action items cannot be limited to 15 minutes, then it should be moved to the end of the agenda. Allowing public comment to drag on and on means calendared action items can't be heard at their advertised times, forcing witnesses to wait who-knows-how-long and discouraging involvement in the civic process. Frankly, if an issue is important enough to generate significant comment, then it should be duly noticed for a public hearing so that everyone has an opportunity to attend and participate.

I've noticed that many planning commissions do not allocate time for actual planning. The agendas are filled with the review of development applications. I think it is important to allocate 15 minutes or more per month to talk about planning issues, such as a neighborhood plan, possible changes to the zoning ordinance etc. By having this as a regular part of the agenda the commission can spend some time focusing on bigger picture issues rather than just development cases.

As the past chairperson of the Frederick County, Maryland Planning Commission I speak only for myself and my suggested offerings to the process are mine alone. The planning staff used to deliver the packet and agenda items for the upcoming meeting on the Friday before the scheduled meeting. This rarely provided enough time for the commission members to adequately go over the applications and complete field visits.

So we, the commission, pushed hard for the packets to be made available sooner as we felt it was necesary to serve our customers by providing a thorough review of their applications. This was done and is a necessary component to good planning. The chief of development review puts the draft agenda together and then reviews it with the chairperson of the planning commission. This works well.

Every applicant appearing before the commission knows he has 15 minutes to present his or her case with a 5 minute rebuttal at the conclusion if needed. Each person providing testimony knows in advance thet they have 5 minutes to present. This is included in our Rules and Procedures document. There is also a clause which will allow more time for testimony when reguested in writing prior to the scheduled meting date. The chaiperson has the right to allow or disallow depending on circumstances.

Elaine Cogan has written a comprehensive piece on the Agenda of the planning commission. There is fairly little to fault. Therefore I am going to digress, and examine a theme which I am sure is there, but is not discussed. I refer to the various skills of the individual members of the commission. And when this is examined one discovers that the planning commission has a glitz in its agenda: too much time is devoted to the small items, and too little time to the matters of real concern. There are two reasons for this. One, minimum thought is required for the small items, hence most members give a LOT of time to those items, which could be dispensed with in comparatively little time. Two, maximum and carefully crafted thought is required on the matters of real concern, hence most members agree with their very few colleagues who have thought through the matter.

Now I'm not sure that this is something that can be addressed in a piece about Agendas. In fact, I'm sure it isn't. How can you spell out the particular "skills" of one of the members of the Commission whose main contribution to the deliberations of the body is the day of the week -- or month -- the body meets? No, it can't be done. But perhaps the colleague whose questions ring forth the fewest rebuttals is one who pays close attention to the real concern. Unless, of course, he happens to be the one who asks the questions and never cuts to the matter at hand.

We plan ahead and set aside certain evenings purely for planning work. Otherwise, trying to work on planning matters after spending what inevitably becomes too much time on site plan review is a recipe for not planning at all. This is critical for communities where the pc continues to share review and planning roles.

Elaine Cogan's point about plainly delineating when public comment is invited and the actions expected of them (in the third paragraph) is excellent. I find that a simple explanation of the commission's procedures and actions provides a road map for the activities of the meeting. This lessens the anxiety of people attending the meeting, many of whom have never attended such a meeting but are emotionally involved in an agenda item. I have seen people become unnecessarily shaken because they were not sure of what was going on and they thought that they had missed their opportunity to state their case.

I respectfully disagree with Elaine on placing the contentious and controversial issues early on the agenda. There is no need to hold up many other petitioners due to one controversial item. Get the small things out of the way and take the time you need on the controversial items. One planning commission meeting sticks in my mind regarding this topic. The planning commission had become mired in a contentious petition and the discussion had bogged down in minutia (how many leaves need to be on the trees they would plant or something equally consequential.) Then a small woman made her way to the podium to speak. She bluntly stated to get moving on the agenda because her item dealt with where she would be able to live in the immediate future! I believe she was item #24 on the agenda. The planning commission should do what they can to expedite the ministerial items on the agenda (the consent agenda is great for this) and quickly move to the controversial items at the end of the agenda and take the time they need on these items. (People not familiar with a consent agenda system may not know that a planning commissioner can pull an individual item they want to discuss further without derailing the rest of the consent agenda).

While setting times to the agenda is good in concept, I have concerns about how this would actually work. Most planning commissions I have dealt with do not want to cut productive discussion short just because they hit an arbitrary time limit. Conversely, if an item is unexpectedly continued on the agenda the time line for the rest of the meeting is off. This could cause trouble if people do not show up to the meeting until their scheduled time. Finally, planning commissions receive enough flack from a grumpy public. I would hate to see more grumbling and negativism advanced because that dastardly planning commission couldn't even keep to the time schedule on their own agenda!

While I would agree with the concept of a Consent Agenda for routine or non-controversial items, be sure to check your Zoning Ordinance or enabling statutes to be sure that if a public hearing is required, the Commission must formally open the public hearing and close it before making a motion to consider them as a group.