Fall 1997

APA Fine Tunes the Planning Commission

By Stuart Meck, AICP

Legislative reform affects planning commissioners. The American Planning Association is fine tuning the role of planning commissions in local government as part of new model planning enabling legislation now under development. The statutes are being prepared as part of APA's Growing Smart project, a multiyear effort to draft the next generation of model planning and zoning enabling legislation for the U.S. What might this mean for you and your commission?

Where the Planning Commission Came From

Most state planning and zoning enabling legislation in the U.S. descends from two model acts drafted by an advisory committee of the U.S. Department of Commerce in the 1920s. That committee, appointed by then Commerce Secretary (and later President) Herbert Hoover developed the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act and the Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA). The Growing Smart project is attempting to update those model acts in a Legislative Guidebook, the first volume of which was published in January 1997.

The SCPEA itself contained model language to authorize the creation of a municipal planning commission and to describe its powers. The independent municipal planning commission proposed by the SCPEA was composed of nine members, including the mayor, one of the administrative officials of the municipality selected by the mayor, a member of the council selected by the council itself, and six other persons who were to be appointed by the mayor if the mayor was elected. The appointed members served six-year terms. A note to the SCPEA indicated that the number of members on a planning commission could vary widely, depending on the preference of the states.

Under the SCPEA, the planning commission was the municipal planning agency. It had the authority to hire staff and contract with city planners, engineers, and other consultants to carry out its responsibilities. The expenditures for its activities, exclusive of gifts, were to be within the amounts appropriated for the purpose by the council, which was to provide the funds, equipment, and accommodations for the commission's work.

While the SCPEA provided for elected and administrative officials to serve on the commission, it favored a body predominately composed of lay officials who, in the words of its authors, "should be free from the pressures of purely current problems." Service on the commission was to be a part-time effort and was not to be compensated.

The SCPEA's authors also resisted the imposition of professional qualifications for the planning commission members, stating that "capacity for leadership in city planning, rather than any particular type of professional or technical training, constitutes the best qualification." Interestingly, the SCPEA's authors specifically did not recommend that planning commission members be electors of the municipality. In fact, they categorically rejected it. Its authors noted that often a person who is Awell-adapted" for service on a planning commission may reside in some nearby suburb Aand has large business interests in the municipality in question."

The SCPEA limited the planning commission's responsibilities to "make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the municipality, including any areas outside of its boundaries which, in the commission's judgment, bear relationship to the planning of such municipality." After the master plan was adopted, the commission gained review powers over streets, squares, parks or other public ways, public buildings or structures, and public utilities, whether publicly or privately owned. The city council could overrule a planning commission's rejection of a proposed public improvement, but only by a two-thirds vote.

The SCPEA gave the commission the power to promote public interest in the plan and publish and distribute it. The planning commission could also serve as the zoning commission (but not the board of zoning adjustment), which would formulate a zoning code for the community and advise the council on zoning matters.

Once the planning commission had adopted a major street plan, it became responsible for drafting regulations governing land subdivision within its jurisdiction and subsequently reviewing subdivisions. It also could then formulate, for approval by the council, a plat of the area that it recommended to be reserved for future acquisition of public streets in order to prevent the construction of buildings in lands reserved for such streets. In many states, this provision is called "the official map" requirement.

Problems with the SCPEA

The SCPEA's provisions have been the subject of a substantial body of criticism over the years. One criticism is that the SCPEA excludes elected officials from plan making because it makes the planning commission and not the legislative body responsible for plan formulation and adoption. Because elected officials are shut out, they may disregard the advice of the commission entirely.

Still another criticism is that planning commissions are not representative of broad interests in a community. Studies by APA and others have shown that planning board members typically are white males. In 1979 minorities represented 8 percent of the membership and in the most recent survey done in 1987, the percentage was 8.5 percent. There is increasing participation by women and in some areas of the country and in larger cities, minority members are more prevalent.

Most commissioners are 40 years old or older. Their family incomes are often above the family income of the general population. They work in the professions or as managers. They tend to be long-term residents of their communities, married, own their own homes, and have dependent children at home. Most commissions tend not to have minorities. Nor do they typically include low-income groups, renters, or blue collar workers. Many communities appoint only residents as planning commissioners, so a local businessperson who lives in another town cannot serve.

Some local governments try to address the problem of lack of representativeness on the planning commission by entrusting the public involvement component of plan preparation (as well as other special planning projects) to specially created task forces with broader representation. This has the advantage of increasing diversity and bringing in an expanded range of citizen talent, especially by top professionals and key executives who would otherwise be reluctant to serve on a planning commission because of time commitments or be unable to serve because of residency requirements.

The practice of making the planning commission the municipal planning agency with responsibility for line or routine planning functions is disappearing. This shift has been prompted by the modern tendency to place such functions, and the planning staff as well, under the chief executive officer of the local government--the mayor or city manager--rather under than a semi-autonomous commission, which was a prevailing practice in the 1920s to the early 1960s.

APA's Models and Their Implications

Under the draft model acts developed by APA, a local legislative body must first designate by ordinance a "local planning agency" in order to undertake planning. However, the selection and the organization form of the planning agency is a local government's decision. The philosophy of the model statute is that the local government should be given as much flexibility as possible in structuring the planning function. The model directs the legislative body to designate either the local planning commission, a planning department, a community development department, or such other entity other than itself as the local planning agency.

Creation of a local planning commission can be optional (as it is in many states) or mandatory, and task forces may instead fulfill some of the advisory citizen involvement functions. Under the model, a planning commission may create such task forces with the approval of the legislative body.

A local planning commission, where it is established, may assume one of several organizational forms, the composition of which can differ depending on the degree of diversity of occupation and viewpoints that are desired by the state legislature. For example, one alternative calls for the selection of "constituency representatives," who may or may not be residents of the local government, as well as elected and appointed officials and homeowners.

Constituency representatives might include a developer or builder of residential or nonresidential development; a resident who lives in rental, affordable, or multifamily housing; and an owner or employee of a business or commercial activity within the local government. In addition, a member or staff person from a county or regional planning agency may also serve on the local planning commission to represent regional interests. Other alternatives reflect the composition that was originally proposed in the SCPEA.

The model statutes call for the legislative body, not the planning commission, to adopt the master or comprehensive plan, although the commission may conduct hearings and workshops on the plan, formulate programs of public involvement in plan making, and advise the legislative body on matters related to planning and zoning. For example, the models allow the planning commission to have a central responsibility in overseeing a broad-based "visioning" process in formulating the comprehensive plan and amendments to it.

The models propose an open selection process for planning commission members. They also require the local planning agency to conduct both initial and ongoing training and continuing education programs for commissioners (see the Spring 1997 issue). The purpose is to ensure that each commission member understands the broad policy and regulatory context in which the commission functions as well as follows appropriate procedures in conducting hearings and meetings and in making decisions.

Commentary to the model statutes nonetheless indicates a strong preference for the creation and retention of planning commissions. Local planning commissions, it notes, have served their communities well over the years and continue to be appropriate when the local government wants a permanent body to advise the governing body on planning issues, champion or endorse plans, mediate development issues, and serve as a buffer between elected officials and the public.

Finding Out More

You can also download the Guidebook's for free along with other information about the Growing Smart project from APA's web site.

Stuart Meck, AICP, is Principal Investigator for APA's Growing Smart. The project is funded by HUD, EPA, FHWA, FTA, FEMA, USDA, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Siemens Corporation, and APA.