"Really, We Don’t Use a Planning Commission?"
By Kerwin Jensen
That’s what I said to our Planning Manager after he described how our community processed land use applications. It was about six years ago when I decided to accept a new position in the state of Washington. I had previously worked in three other Western states and had worked with multiple planning commissions over the course of my 27-year career. I was very surprised when the Planning Manager met with me and said, “C’mon Kerwin, I’d like to take you to our Hearing Examiner meeting.” To me, this sounded more like an invitation to a court proceeding than a land use meeting.
I have worked with and appreciated the judgement of the planning commissioners, and view it as a great function of local government. Although we still use a planning commission for items such as comprehensive plan amendments and code amendments, the Hearing Examiner takes on the role of reviewing more controversial items such as preliminary plats, rezones, and planned unit developments.
It is typical for each jurisdiction to decide how the Hearing Examiner system will operate in their own community. The basic purpose of having a Hearing Examiner conduct these hearings is to have a professional trained individual, typically an attorney, make objective quasi-judicial decisions that are supported by an adequate record and are free from local politics.
Richland Hearing Examiner Public Meeting - May 3, 2018 (courtesy of Richland meetings video archive)
My skepticism of this approach quickly changed after attending my first few meetings. First of all, our Hearing Examiner lives nowhere near our jurisdiction. In fact, our Hearing Examiner lives on the opposite side of the state of Washington. There is never any sort of conflict or perceived conflict due to local or family relationships, which can tend to come about with members of planning commissions. Also, the meetings are run in a much more formal fashion than planning commission meetings; no grandstanding or applauding is allowed to take place. Additionally, participants are sworn in and obligated to tell the truth and the meeting is very much run like a courtroom hearing.
I have also been impressed that the Hearing Examiner will generally always approve a development proposal if all local codes and standards are met, even when there are dozens of upset citizens and NIMBY’s attending the public hearing. I have learned that Washington has some very restrictive standards in place compared to other states I have worked in; a legally compliant property owner deserves the right to develop their land no matter how unpopular their development may be to surrounding neighbors.
Virtual hearing examiner meeting for Richfield, Dec 13, 2021 (courtesy of Richfield meeting video archive).
After participating in and observing our Hearing Examiner meetings over the past six years, I have gained an appreciation for this system. I have great respect for how well this system works. As planners, we work within this system, enjoying the benefits, and their accompanying frustrations.
Additionally, our City Council also values the decisions and recommendations from our Hearing Examiner knowing that these decisions are made on solid evidence and facts. For planners working in similar circumstances, it is important that we help compile that information for decision makers. Let’s hope for, and work toward, our planning commissioners and city council members placing similar trust in our role.
About the Author
Kerwin Jensen currently serves as the Director of Community and Development Services for the City of Richland, Washington and has served in that capacity for six years. Kerwin has worked for local governments for 33 years throughout the West, including the states of Montana, Colorado, Utah, and now Washington.