Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Process Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney briefs planning commission on ex parte disclosure and state change affecting plat approvals
Summary
A county staff briefing on July 17 explained state-level changes and existing case law that require planning commissioners to disclose ex parte communications in land-use proceedings and described a recent state statutory change that may allow plats to bypass final commission review; staff said they will seek local code updates and more guidance.
Washington County planning staff briefed the Planning Commission July 17 on requirements for disclosing ex parte communications in quasi-judicial land-use matters and on a recent amendment to state law that could allow plats to be finalized without a separate final planning commission approval.
A staff speaker identified in the transcript as "Mister Fuqua" told commissioners that longstanding case law treating off-the-record contact with applicants or opponents as potentially prejudicial means commissioners must disclose conversations they have about applications when they later make quasi-judicial decisions. He said the statute permits commissioners either to disclose ex parte contacts on the record or for counties to adopt a disclosure mechanism; the briefing draws from procedures similar to a Bay County resolution referenced in the discussion.
The speaker also described a state-level amendment intended to speed the planning process by removing a step that previously required final plats to return to the planning commission for final approval. Staff said the amendment has prompted questions among county attorneys and practitioners about whether that reading is literal — effectively allowing staff-level signoffs without a public hearing — or whether local code changes are necessary to preserve public notice and review. The speaker said some surveyors and developers support the change, while others and some county attorneys have pushed back; staff is awaiting legal consensus and said the county may amend its land development code or process to maintain public notice where appropriate.
There was discussion of practical steps: when commissioners choose to meet or speak with interested parties before a decision, they may decline to receive off-the-record presentations, or they may hear them but must disclose the substance of those contacts on the record. The brief concluded with staff advising commissioners to use an online disclosure mechanism and to seek assistance from staff for required filings and forms.
No formal action was taken; the briefing was informational and staff said it will return with recommended code changes or procedures if needed.
