[Massplanners] [EXTERNAL]Re: Private conversations with an applicant?

[Jay Vinskey]

Except that substantively engaging the Board pre-hearing can make it look like the Board is a partner on the project, and the public/abutters feel like "the fix is in"

Jay Vinskey, AICP, RLA
City Planner

59 Court Street - Suite 300, Westfield, MA 01085
office: 413.642.9307
mobile: 413.579.7494
E-mail is considered a public record and therefore subject to MGL Chapter 66 § 10, Massachusetts Public Records Law

________________________________
From: MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org> on behalf of John Cruz via MassPlanners <massplanners at masscptc.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:12 PM
To: Richard Harris <rhplanner01075 at gmail.com>
Cc: Mass Planners <massplanners at masscptc.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [Massplanners] Private conversations with an applicant?


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize and verify the sender and know the content is safe.


I agree with Richard entirely.

Based on my municipal experience, whoever staffs the board should be the intermediary to have offline discussions with a member of the public outside of public hearings. Board members meeting with someone on an issue outside of these public talks, regardless of the legality, is not a good look. I'm also a fan of work sessions that are outside of the standard board meetings before the public hearing process begins, either with or without the petitioner, to hear a board's concerns with a development to hopefully get ahead of any issues that can bog down a public hearing.

-John

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 11:59 AM Richard Harris via MassPlanners <massplanners at masscptc.org<mailto:massplanners at masscptc.org>> wrote:
I recognize that individual board members will engage in discussions with applicants and members of the public outside of public hearings - I don't think that is good or sound practice. It calls into question whether Board members are making decisions based on the public record or information they have privately received. As an alternative, I have engaged in such discussions and relayed to the full board the details and new information arising from that discussion in the public hearing - usually with written materials I have posted on a website.

If an applicant wants to explain aspects of a project to a few members, they should do so to all the members and the public. Similarly, if board members have need for clarification regarding a project, they need to do so in the public hearing where everyone can hear the question and the response.

Thank you

Richard Harris, AICP
PDR, LLC
Planning Consultant
413-335-5012


On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 11:24 AM Douglas Finn via MassPlanners <massplanners at masscptc.org<mailto:massplanners at masscptc.org>> wrote:
To all -

I need some reinforcement for my assumptions:

I have a board member who is proposing a one-on-one conversation with an applicant, in an attempt to work out differences as to the scope of their proposal, and to try to resolve some of the more sticky details.

This is in the middle of a special permit public hearing process (that has been continued twice, and will likely be continued again.

To me, I'm afraid this could expose the adjudicative board's decision in being overturned upon appeal.

Is there case law that supports my nervous concern?

Thanks,

- Doug.
--
MassPlanners mailing list
MassPlanners at masscptc.org<mailto:MassPlanners at masscptc.org>
http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fmasscptc.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fmassplanners_masscptc.org&c=E,1,Nj_roSNoN600lxHI0M973aR5qhPeqMEK_rfCu5AlY4VSarFxP603iKSSq53wDmX5tvgs70tpyAY5rmAq0NTDIkO5uWIaKP9yj_Qe0woDUP9seQ,,&typo=1>
--
MassPlanners mailing list
MassPlanners at masscptc.org<mailto:MassPlanners at masscptc.org>
http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fmasscptc.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fmassplanners_masscptc.org&c=E,1,3sPJkAwiAM5HaTwajZpJNrlpko9yc-A8A4IcpTK5YRmQG1C4RsESmxbKS_sl4oQ7s0gR1I8DOA_Y97c3AXpvgQYMAsLShhHWbdB3Peo4HJ0,&typo=1>


--
John Cruz, AICP
john at cruzweb.net<mailto:john at cruzweb.net> | 314-688-6463
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.urbanistdispatch.com%2f&c=E,1,IcZdAnfVb33NAatFY5onNVF6YFdtQNUH3-JUbF_ezXVZKrh6I9OI_fmDX-mSl2wfFBn0N8ajAYMhn1jsp_ok4ByKIzalvdHJ0TZh2YnKRA,,&typo=1>
Misplaced Focus - www.misplacedfocus.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.misplacedfocus.com%2f&c=E,1,08VWc7i5ZCqd10w0OSQaurdwtgbde8WmudfskDIvRqk8Ps9bCn5rvpa4k0pzOj1HtLm0GgfJ6VCE__pv9WrX6Mb0VzNdbJVWciPs4PjVmALwMyYx5SNC&typo=1>
www.linkedin.com/in/johncarloscruz<http://www.linkedin.com/in/johncarloscruz>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://masscptc.org/pipermail/massplanners_masscptc.org/attachments/20250213/53fd22b6/attachment.htm>