sneapa 2013 thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

31

Upload: american-planning-association-massachusetts-chapter

Post on 01-Nov-2014

337 views

Category:

Real Estate


4 download

DESCRIPTION

Land in Conflict. Managing and Resolving Land Use Disputes

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains
Page 2: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Rolling Greens/Bald Hill Nursery

An Inventory of Perspectives…a real mess!

Page 3: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains
Page 4: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains
Page 5: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Land in Conflict framework

4. Assessing and understanding the stakeholders, issues and interests

5. Designing a process for collaboration

6. Facilitating deliberation

7. Implementing agreements

Chapters:

Page 6: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Guiding Process Principles

• Engage early

• Listen and learn first

• Build on interests, not positions

• Design and build an effective process

• Involve many, not just a few

• Learn jointly

• Use a skilled facilitator

• Build relationships for the long-term

• Be transparent

• Be responsive

Page 7: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Chapter 4Assessing and understanding the stakeholders, issues and interests

Page 8: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Assessment in North Kingstown

• CBI Assessment Phase I and II

• Phase I – interviews with local stakeholders; interviews and feedback would dictate the process

• Planning Commission shot down CBI project after 1st assessment

• PC felt that assessment was redundant, they already knew background and resident concerns…

• Application for new zoning district, tied to this intersection, moved on….Public feels disconnected

• Took over 1 year to adopt an ordinance that should have taken a few months; public fought new mixed use ordinance for fear of how it would apply at intersection

Page 9: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

•Town Council ordered 2nd assessment from CBI after adoption of zoning and closure of Village Project reports I, II, III

•Process and results oriented; Consultant team selection

•Had a strict mission – determine a vision and mix of uses; complete process in 4 months

•Spoke to original stakeholders and got other names of people to speak with further in the process

•It was never hidden why this deadline was in place; openly discussed and debated numerous times

•Had people on both sides objecting that this has already taken too long, why even have this process….

Assessment in North Kingstown

Page 10: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Chapter 5Designing a process for collaboration

1. Design the process with, not for the people

2. Undertake an assessment

3. Select the participants carefully

4. Link collaborative processes explicitly to formal decision-making

5. Provide multiple forms of participation to ensure full engagement

6. Ensure that technical support is professional, credible and publicly legitimate

7. Set specific timeframes and deliverables

Page 11: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Design of the North Kingstown Process

•Who is included in designing the process? TC said, this is a Planning Department study – Planning, figure it out;

• Planning Dept and CBI – designed process

•Stakeholder group – who is on; are elected officials or those running for office; TC appointed group, and said take recommendations into consideration; no guarantee that TC would agree;

•Voting and non-voting members;

•Set timeframe – wanted decision prior to the election; TC felt that they had been dealing with this issue for over 2 years!

•Stakeholder meetings; neighborhood focus meetings; open public meetings;

•Simultaneously while Rolling Greens application was pending;

•What are the constraints and opportunities for the future of this intersection?

•What does the future of this intersection look like? What is that vision?

•What can we agree upon to narrow down the issues?

•Planning Commission and Town Council need direction from this group and the residents on the proper type and intensity of development at this intersection.

Page 12: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Chapter 6Facilitating deliberation

Page 13: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Facilitating deliberation: The Beginning Phase

Page 14: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Clarify How Decisions Will Be Made

• Link with the Intent of the Process• How much Agreement is needed?

• Determine what happens if decision threshold cannot be met.

• Clarify responsibilities of approval (e.g., not blocking later)

• Possible decision rules:• Majority• Super-Majority (i.e., 2/3s, 3/4s, 90%)• By Interest/Stakeholder Group• No blockers• Unanimity

Page 15: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Facilitating the Beginning Phase in North Kingstown

• Ground-rules – how, when, and conduct;

• What is consensus; defining consensus – 2 meetings to complete/figure out;

• Non-voting members/voting members;

• Involvement of abutting municipality as 2 non-voting members;

• Meetings every 3 weeks; tight timeframe;

• What information (technical) was needed to make a decision: aquifer, traffic, environment, stormwater, and open space.

Page 16: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Facilitating deliberation: The Middle Phase

Page 17: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Trust

Page 18: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Strategies for Dealing with Difficult People

• Enforce the Groundrules• Acknowledge concerns• Talk Privately• Account for Emotional Intensity• Separate the gripe from the

griper• Analyze and name the problem• Use different process techniques• Engage broader constituencies

Page 19: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Facilitating the Middle Phase in North Kingstown

• TRUST!!!!!! Building it was challenging and for some was never achieved (but did occur for others)

• Work Plan was based upon existing zoning and issues• Zone change and Master plan for Rolling Greens was

submitting and on hold/slowly moving forward…..• Address technical questions on: aquifer, traffic,

environment, stormwater, open space, NIMBY• Smoke and mirrors; hidden agendas• Bickering• No innovative ideas that came out of this process• Design scenario options• Ability to rely on past meeting summaries• What can go there today?

Page 20: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Build out

Page 21: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Facilitating deliberation: The End Phase

Page 22: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Facilitating the End Phase in North Kingstown

•Deadline of Town Council’s last meeting

•VOTING!!!!

•Scenario solutions of different options for development; broke down into elements – i.e. bike paths and sidewalks; open space; per property uses and densities; roundabout.

•Tradeoffs and negotiating at the table

•Developing a package of a preferred overall solution

•In between the highway and the new zoning district, those residential neighborhoods surrounding this intersection will not change

•Goal to reinforce the southern rural farmland, and to protect what is not protected

Page 23: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Chapter 7Implementing Agreements

• The Steps of Implementation

1. Incorporate the agreement into a proposal

2. Advise the decision makers during the required process

3. Monitor implementation

Page 24: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Monitoring Implementation

Page 25: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Recommendations for Effective Implementation

•Discuss implementation early

•Keep lives of communication open throughout implementation

•Clarify roles, responsibilities, and timelines

•Decide on timelines

•Decide on Consequences

Page 26: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Implementation in North Kingstown

• It was never hidden why this deadline was in place; openly discussed and debated numerous times

• Adoption by PC and TC process

• A hectic November, especially the last full week

• Mismatched ads – hurdles with that adoption

• Hurt feelings

• 2 lawsuits pending; objections at SWP x2

• Appeal decision through SWP and abutting municipalities

• PC now reviewing the Preliminary plan

Page 27: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Village

Page 28: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Lessons Learned

• We reached consensus, but was that successful?• Needed more time, maybe would not have had the residual

lawsuits• Some of the details got lost, and details are important• Trust – people should trust, or we need to get public to trust

us, planners and consultants• Where did we go wrong? What happens if you get outvoted?• Would there have been any outcome, other than NO CHANGE,

that would have prevented the town from getting sued by abutters?

• As soon as the abutters/stakeholders felt invalidated, they tried to undermine the process!

• Buy in from our Planning Commission – they didn’t get it;• SOUR APPLES – they were undermining the process during

the process and spreading misinformation;

Page 29: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Lessons Learned continued…

• Avoid the pitfalls, what where they at each phase?

• Great consultants and designed scenarios, but public did not believe what existing zoning would allow or that it could be built

• Take some pictures to document this process

• Solution is MUCH better than what was allowed under previous zoning

• Process is about getting to solutions, not making everyone happy

• May develop some allies and enemies through this process

• It is taking too long to do nothing!

Page 30: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Rolling Greens/Bald Hill Nursery

Rural Gateway/Emerging Growth Center

Recommendation from South County Design Manual

RIDEM, 2001

Page 31: SNEAPA 2013 Thursday a2 9_15_mutual gains

Questions???

• Stacie Smith

• Consensus Building Institute

• Jonathan J. Reiner, AICP

• North Kingstown Planning Department

• Nathan Kelly, AICP

• Horsley Witten Group