Havre de Grace planning commissioners review rules on records, public comments and site visits during Aug. 21 workshop

The Havre de Grace Planning Commission on Aug. 21 held a workshop to revise its internal rules and procedures, discussing election eligibility, how staff presents applications, what constitutes the official meeting record, procedures for written public comments, and guidance for site visits and commissioner communications.

Commissioners said the draft is intended to reflect recommendations from the city attorney and previous months’ discussion and to clarify how the body treats staff reports, public input and off‑site fact‑finding. Chair Volney Ford opened the meeting and stressed that the session was a workshop and that "tonight's planning commission meeting does not have any public cases. It is essentially a workshop," noting no final votes were expected.

The commission considered several specific changes. On internal elections, the draft proposes that all eight commission members be eligible to vote on leadership even if alternates are not eligible to hold office; commissioners discussed minor wording conflicts between sections that reference "all members" and sections that reference "regular members." The draft also adds a reference to the land‑use sections of the Maryland Annotated Code in the meetings section.

On recordkeeping, Commissioner Jeff (planning staff/director) proposed language that "the complete record of the meeting shall include the minutes, the archived livestream video of the meeting ... and all documents submitted." Commissioners and the city attorney agreed the record should explicitly include archived video as well as written minutes, and several commissioners noted state law requires written minutes while archived recordings provide more detail.

The commission debated how staff should present case materials. Several commissioners and the city attorney, April, said staff should summarize the staff report rather than read long reports verbatim into the record. April told the group that "the staff report is what it is and they can answer clarifications obviously, but it's not their burden to convince the commission. It's the applicants' burden to convince the commission that they met all aspects of the law." Commissioners settled on language that staff should present a summary of the staff report and the department’s findings, with more detailed questioning directed to staff or the applicant after the applicant’s presentation.

A lengthy portion of the workshop focused on written public comments. One commissioner proposed that "when members of the public cannot attend the hearing, written public comments must be submitted to the Planning Department no later than 9 a.m. the Wednesday before the Thursday evening Planning Commission meeting" so staff can make submissions available in the shared drive and to applicants. Planning staff and the city attorney urged caution: staff noted processing volume and authentication concerns, and the city attorney recommended a longer lead time (three business days, e.g., Monday morning) for fairness and to allow applicants time to respond. Commissioners discussed limits (page counts or word limits) and whether the department should be required to forward submissions to applicants. There was no final adoption of a written‑submission deadline; commissioners generally agreed to develop a transparent timetable and procedures, with the planning department to advise on staffing and logistics.

On site visits, commissioners debated the balance between the state land‑use statute, which allows commissioners to "enter on any land and make examinations and surveys," and a desire for courtesy and safety. Several commissioners urged that visits be encouraged to be announced to property owners (so owners can flag hazards or tenants) and that site visits be documented on the record. Commissioners also discussed limiting simultaneous site visits to three members when possible to avoid triggering an unintended public‑meeting quorum under the Open Meetings Act. The planning department noted the city code for applications already states that applicants consent to site visits when they submit an application; commissioners asked staff to refine the draft to use encouraging, rather than mandatory, language about advance notice and to require a brief on‑the‑record statement that a site visit occurred.

Commissioners also debated a new section on "communications with others during pending case applications" and a related section on "reliance upon professional expertise." Some commissioners urged clear limits to avoid prejudging applications or creating appearances of bias; city attorney April and others emphasized the commission’s responsibility to act within the scope of state and local code (for example, City Code Section 25‑24 and the Maryland land‑use provisions) and to rely on departmental approvals where the code delegates authority to another agency (such as a forest conservation plan or Department of Public Works approvals). Several speakers asked staff to rephrase the section so it preserves the commission’s ability to ask factual clarifying questions, to raise issues seen during site visits, and to request additional verification from staff when there appear to be discrepancies between filed plans and observed conditions.

Other procedural points discussed included: a suggested rule that the commission may accept supplementary materials during a hearing on a case‑by‑case basis, limits on public testimony (commonly three minutes per speaker, as noted by staff), and the practice of approving minutes via email when no substantive changes are proposed. Commissioners agreed there is already an informal practice for handling supplemental materials, but they asked staff to propose clearer guidance on timing, authentication and distribution.

No formal adoption of the revised rules occurred at the workshop. Commissioners agreed to continue work on the draft and return with wording changes — including revised site‑visit and written‑comment procedures — at the commission’s next meeting. The workshop concluded after a motion to adjourn was made and seconded; commissioners planned to resume consideration of the draft at the September meeting.

The discussion produced several specific items staff was asked to return with: (1) clearer wording to reconcile "all members" versus "regular members" for elections and officer eligibility; (2) recommended deadlines and staffing procedures for written submissions, including possible page or word limits; (3) softened site‑visit language that encourages owner notice, documents visits on the record and clarifies identification options for commissioners; and (4) rephrased language on communications and reliance on professional expertise that preserves the commission’s ability to ask factual questions while avoiding prejudgment or exceeding statutory authority.

Looking ahead, commissioners said they will review the revised draft and vote on the rules once the city attorney and planning staff have incorporated the wording changes discussed at the workshop.