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

[Daniel Fortier]

I agree, I kept all Board discussions within the public hearing. Dennis had
a staff review process where applicants were afforded the opportunity, as
often as they desired, to meet with  Planning, Engineering, Building, Fire,
Police, Natural Resources, etc.  and address all technical issues  before
filing. That left the hearing for less technical issues.

Daniel Fortier, AICP Retired Planner

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 11:26 AM Jay Vinskey via MassPlanners <
massplanners at masscptc.org> wrote:

> 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"
>
>
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/59+Court+Street+-+Suite+300,+Westfield,+MA+01085+%0D%0A+%0D%0Aoffice:+413?entry=gmail&source=g>
> *Jay Vinskey, AICP, RLA*
> City Planner
>
> 59 Court Street - Suite 300, Westfield, MA 01085
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/59+Court+Street+-+Suite+300,+Westfield,+MA+01085+%0D%0A+%0D%0Aoffice:+413?entry=gmail&source=g>
> office: 413
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/59+Court+Street+-+Suite+300,+Westfield,+MA+01085+%0D%0A+%0D%0Aoffice:+413?entry=gmail&source=g>
> .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> 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> 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
> 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
> 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 | 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
> --
> MassPlanners mailing list
> MassPlanners at masscptc.org
> http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://masscptc.org/pipermail/massplanners_masscptc.org/attachments/20250213/f450fb6f/attachment.htm>