by J. Brooks Terry
Staff Writer
Who should have the final say over whether a proposed development is appropriate for a neighborhood? Some say a third party may have to make the call if City Hall can’t make up its mind.
According to recently enacted local law, modifications to planned urban developments must be reviewed by the City Council member whose district would be affected. The first step in seeing that legislation through took place this week as two Council members met with representatives from the Mayor’s Office and the City’s Planning Department to discuss how the newly adopted protocol should run.
Council member Art Graham, who co-sponsored the legislation, said he is largely pleased with the Planning Department’s willingness to work with the Council on that modification process, but that Mayor John Peyton’s office seemed hesitant to “slow things down.”
“The Mayor’s Office has been very insistent that they want to move quickly with the approval process, which I can understand,” Graham said. “The quicker we can move on a development, the quicker we can get it on the tax rolls.”
Susie Wiles, Peyton’s communications and special initiatives chief, said the administration wanted to “work through the process at an appropriate pace.”
“And we don’t want to do anything that would impede that,” Wiles said. “We want to maintain a level of service because the citizens expect that.”
But Wiles added that Peyton was “absolutely in agreement” with the Council that all PUDs should meet a minimum standard.
“And we are moving forward with that understanding,” she said.
But Graham and Council member Sharon Copeland said they want more than a look at Planned Urban Development site plans. Graham said a third party outside of the executive and legislative branches’ purview should make a final determination if a developer, a Council member and the Planning Department can’t agree.
“And I think that’s going to be the sticking point,” he said. “I think there needs to be a third party, someone who can hear both sides of the issue and make a determination based on the facts.”
Graham and Copeland said that either the Planning Commission or the Circuit Courts may prove to be a suitable higher authority.
“In the case of a dispute resolution I think there needs to be someone outside of the issue who can make a ruling,” Graham said. “Ordinarily I would say the Planning Department would be fine, but the trust just isn’t there right now.
“Once we finalizing the dispute resolution language, the Mayor’s Office may turn around and veto it. If they do we have the votes to overturn that.”
Wiles said Peyton would not “try to predict Councilman Graham’s next action ahead of time.”
“And we can’t offer any further comment at this time,” she said.
That dispute resolution legislation could come before the City Council before the end of September.
Last month Graham began his campaign to revamp the City’s site development process. At that time a development in the Bayard community off of Phillips Highway had been “completely changed” after Graham consented to early designs.
Currently both administrative and the minor modifications to development concepts must meet a litany of requirements before being able to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Requirements for the latter mandate that the general location, number of units or floor area must remain the same. Minor modifications also must be advertised for 14 days prior to a public hearing regarding the matter.
Those hearings occur outside Council domain.
“I don’t want to slow the process down anymore than it needs to be,” Graham said last month, “but we’re caught in the middle and we need to be able to have a better say over the final product. I don’t want what happened to me to happen to anyone else again.”
Council members Lynette Self, Michael Corrigan, Art Shad, Suzanne Jenkins and Sharon Copeland agreed.
“It’s got to stop,” said Copeland, “because these changes are happening and we don’t even see them until after these developments are built. By then it’s too late and that’s when we start getting calls from angry constituents.
“Maybe all we need to do is have better communication between our offices because if we can do all of the work on the front end we can save a lot of time and money.”