Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Commission Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Torrington council tables planning commission ordinance; seeks smaller board and clearer process
Summary
The Torrington City Council on first reading tabled an ordinance that would change planning commission membership from seven to five, replace mandatory "will" language with discretionary "may," and add a 10-year term limit (grandfathering current members). Staff will redraft and return June 17.
The Torrington City Council on Tuesday voted to table an ordinance that would shrink the city's planning commission from seven to five members, change several uses of the word "will" in the ordinance to the discretionary "may," and add a 10-year term limit for commissioners while grandfathering current members. Council moved to table the measure for redrafting and return at the June 17 meeting.
Supporters of the rewrite told the council the changes are intended to reflect current practice and to ease problems that arise when the planning commission lacks a quorum. Mayor Estes and other council members said the planning commission rarely meets because several seats are vacant, and that requiring a full seven-member board has caused applicants to incur extra time and expense when plats could not be reviewed. City Attorney Jim Eddington told the council, "I don't foresee any problems whatsoever. No."
The council's discussion focused on three practical changes: reducing membership to a total of five (with a suggested split of four city residents and one from the unincorporated area), converting mandatory-sounding language (characterized in the meeting as "will" or equivalent to "shall") to "may" to reflect that the planning commission is advisory, and adding a limit that no commissioner serve longer than 10 years while explicitly grandfathering current members so they would not be removed immediately.
Proponents said the change would prevent applicants from having to pay and wait for a second month of review when the planning commission cannot convene. Council members repeatedly emphasized that the council, when sitting as the board of adjustment, retains final authority to approve plats and variances even if the planning commission does not act. Several council members asked staff to include explicit language that if the planning commission fails to meet or lacks a quorum, the item would proceed to the council acting as the board of adjustment so the applicant's plat filing is not delayed.
Some council members pushed back against any language that might be used to routinely bypass the planning commission. Councilman Victorin said he did not want the city to create a process that would become a habit of skipping advisory review. In response, proponents and the city attorney said staff will draft language clarifying intent: planning matters should go to the planning commission first and only come to the board of adjustment if the commission cannot meet or provide an opinion.
After extended discussion and several amendments suggested by council, Councilman Victorin moved to table the ordinance to the June 17 meeting so staff could prepare a redraft reflecting council input. Councilman Deal seconded the motion; the motion passed by voice vote and the item was tabled.
The redraft will include the revised membership numbers and composition, an explicit quorum definition, grandfathering language for current members' terms, and a provision addressing the process when the planning commission cannot act. Staff committed to present the revised ordinance at the June 17 meeting for first-reading consideration.
