Havre de Grace planning commissioners debate new rules for hearings, public comment and evidence submission

Havre de Grace planning commissioners spent their Sept. 18 workshop reviewing and revising a proposed Rules of Procedure intended to govern commission meetings, public participation and evidentiary practice. Chair Ed Garono led the session and said the draft (dated Sept. 10, 2025) was prepared by the commission chair and reviewed by the city attorney before the meeting.

Commissioners focused on how the commission will handle public comment, submission of written materials, site visits, and the order of presentation at case application hearings. The group agreed to several procedural clarifications at the meeting but did not adopt the final draft; the chair said he would circulate a revised version and bring it back for a formal vote at a future meeting.

Why it matters: The rules set the commission’s operating procedures for quasi‑judicial land‑use hearings — shaping how evidence gets to the record, how applicants and staff present cases, and how neighbors and other citizens may participate. Commissioners framed most of the changes as internal housekeeping intended to ensure compliance with city code, Maryland law and fair‑process principles.

Most substantive outcomes and clarifications

- Public comment: Commissioners approved a 3‑minute speaking limit for members of the public at hearings, with the chair authorized to extend time if the content warrants. The chair told the commission the timer will be used to keep hearings efficient; extensions would be made ‘‘if the content warrants’’ and could also be requested by other commissioners.

- Presence required to speak; proxy limited to one other person: The draft would require citizens to be present at hearings to address the commission, with an exception allowing a citizen to appear on behalf of one other person and speak only to that person’s written statement. Commissioners debated the provision’s fairness and workload implications; after discussion the commission kept the proxy limit but removed a later draft sentence that would have required advance departmental validation of citizen documents (see below).

- Submission of written materials by citizens: The draft originally said all citizen‑submitted documents must be delivered to the Department of Planning at least 30 days before a hearing for evaluation and possible reference in the staff report. That deadline prompted pushback (several commissioners and staff noted public notice and file availability timelines make 30 days impractical). Debate centered on staff capacity and the applicant’s due‑process rights. The commission voted to delete the clause that would have required Planning Department validation before such materials could be part of the record. Commissioners and staff agreed that substantial, technical evidence presented at a hearing may prompt the chair to swear in a witness, request validation, table the item, or otherwise require a formal process to vet the material.

- Handling of documents received at the hearing: Commissioners agreed that lengthy or technical documents handed to the commission at the hearing are problematic because staff and commissioners have no way to validate them on the spot. The chair said he would ask speakers to testify to their principal concerns and that the commission could choose to table a matter or accept limited exhibits after validating authorship and authenticity. Planning staff said they can accept time‑stamped submissions for the case file but expressed concerns about being asked to ‘‘evaluate’’ third‑party analyses they cannot validate.

- Case hearing order and role of staff: The rules were revised to state that the chair shall call upon the director of planning (or a planning representative) to present a brief summary of the staff report and to receive commissioner questions about that summary before the applicant presents. The document will also indicate that the director should identify the applicant (name only) before the applicant begins testimony. Commissioners discussed preserving an arm’s‑length process while making hearings more professional and efficient.

- Alternate members and comprehensive‑plan work: The commission expanded an alternate member’s permitted participation, allowing alternates fuller input when the commission is conducting comprehensive‑plan preparations and related workshops (alternates still do not vote unless serving in the capacity of a regular member).

- Findings, closing the record, and signatures: The draft clarifies that, following presentation and testimony, the chair will call for a motion to close the record; the motion must be seconded and voted on. The rules reiterate that written findings of fact and conclusions of law are required by state law and must be prepared and entered into the record. The draft was adjusted to require the findings to be reviewed and the signatory list to include members who voted in favor; commissioners discussed allowing the chair to sign and append a pro‑vote list when some members are unavailable.

- Communications, site visits, and ex parte contact: Commissioners tightened language discouraging off‑record discussion of case merits among commissioners before hearings, citing the Open Meetings Act and concerns about impartiality. For site visits, the rules instruct commissioners to observe property characteristics from public rights‑of‑way ‘‘where practical’’ and to notify the Department of Planning when a visit will occur; commissioners noted state law gives them access to properties in many circumstances but favored a practical approach to avoid conflict with property owners.

Quotes from the meeting

Chair Ed Garono on public input and internal rules: "This is entirely an internal document…we are far better equipped to determine what works and what doesn't work than, say, a citizen that doesn't understand what's going on." (Sept. 18 workshop)

City Attorney on witness swearing: "Typically, anybody presenting evidence that is going to be in the record should be… sworn in, typically." (advice during discussion of case hearings)

Jeff, Director of Planning, on citizen documents: "In terms of transmitting the documents, I have no problem with that. But if you're asking staff to evaluate something that someone else has submitted, we may not be able to do that. I'd have concerns about taking ownership of that document." (planning‑staff response to proposed document submission rule)

What the commission directed next

The chair said he will redraft the rules to reflect the changes discussed and circulate the revised text to commissioners before the next meeting. Commissioners did multiple hand approvals of individual paragraphs during the workshop, but the body did not take a final formal vote to adopt the complete document; the chair said he plans to present the final wording for a formal vote at the commission’s next meeting.

Ending

The session ended without formal adoption of the full Rules of Procedure; commissioners agreed on multiple procedural points and asked staff and the chair to circulate an updated draft for final consideration and vote at an upcoming meeting. The commission then moved to adjourn.