Planning commission forwards revised comprehensive plan after heated DEI and connected-streets debate

The Newcastle Planning Commission voted 4–3 on Feb. 26 to forward a revised draft of the city’s comprehensive plan and three supplemental exhibit packages to the City Council, after an extended public hearing and several competing motions on how extensively the commission should revise the draft before sending it on.

The commission’s decision sends the plan — including edits compiled as “Exhibits 8, 9 and 10” — to council with direction that staff apply the edits in Exhibit 10 first, then Exhibit 9, and notify the council of any portions that staff believe may conflict with state law. Commissioners later directed staff to prepare a single draft reflecting that approach for the March council packet.

The vote followed a divided public hearing in which speakers urged both retention and removal of language on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and voiced differing views on whether the commission should finalize more edits or move the item to the council for additional debate. Mary Vickers, who said she has been a Newcastle homeowner nine years, urged commissioners to “stay the course and not let political pressure derail a plan that was carefully crafted with community input.” Several other speakers — including Jennifer McAleer and Allison Sweeney — also urged keeping DEI language. By contrast, speakers such as Tom Griffin and other commenters argued the DEI language was unnecessary or divisive.

Commission debate turned on process and scope as much as on substance. Commissioner Scott Marsh moved to adopt and forward the version of the plan that had been on the table at the Jan. 22 meeting; that motion failed on a 3–4 roll call. Commissioner Christian Blocker then moved to forward the draft with Exhibits 8–10 and the staff-direction language; Vice Chair Trautman seconded that motion and it passed 4–3 after an amendment to make Exhibit 10 the primary source when exhibits conflicted.

Director Erin Fitzgibbons and the city attorney flagged specific concerns about the format and legal clarity of some proposed edits. Commissioners who supported forwarding argued the council is the appropriate forum to resolve outstanding disputes and that lengthy continued deliberation at the commission would delay the statutory schedule. Commissioners opposing the forward motion said the commission’s role is precisely to vet and resolve edits so council receives a clarified, internally agreed draft.

The commission’s action does not finalize policy. Staff will assemble the final consolidated draft for council and will attach staff notes where wording may raise legal issues or need further clarification. The commission also directed staff to note priorities so Exhibit 10’s language is applied in preference to Exhibit 9 where the two conflict.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to adopt the Jan. 22 draft of the comprehensive plan and forward it to council (moved by Commissioner Marsh; seconded by Commissioner Van Natta): failed, vote record — Marsh: yes; Gack: no; Lowe: no; Van Natta: yes; Blocker: no; Vice Chair Trautman: no; Chair Gazzic: yes. Outcome: failed.

- Motion to forward the draft plan with Exhibits 8, 9 and 10 and direct staff to apply Exhibit 10 first and notify council of any potential conflicts with state law (moved by Commissioner Blocker; seconded by Vice Chair Trautman): approved, vote record — Marsh: no; Gack: yes; Lowe: yes; Van Natta: no; Blocker: yes; Vice Chair Trautman: yes; Chair Gazzic: no. Outcome: approved.

What’s next

City staff will prepare the consolidated draft and related staff notes for the City Council’s packet. The commission was told the item is likely to appear on the City Council agenda in March. Commissioners and staff emphasized that any further legal or technical corrections identified by staff will be forwarded to council as staff comments rather than held up at the commission level.

Community context

Testimony at the hearing reflected strong community engagement and sharply differing views on whether explicit DEI language belongs in the comprehensive plan and how to balance neighborhood character concerns with state-required housing changes. Commissioners repeatedly noted that continued public interest and recent turnover on the commission have fed the intensity of discussion.

Ending

The council will receive the draft with the commission’s direction and staff annotations. If the council requests additional edits, staff and the commission may return to the item later; commissioners said they expect the state-required updates (including housing elements tied to new state law) to remain on a fast timeline because some elements take effect in July.