Government
Two development review boards take steps toward openness
The DC Office of Zoning (DCOZ) and National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) have both made improvements to their websites to help residents get information about the cases they are considering and their deliberations about those cases.
NCPC Chairman Preston Bryant during today's meeting. Image from the NCPC live stream.
NCPC launched live streaming video of its meetings, one of which took place today and, at least at the moment, is still going on. The video shows the presentations being made and zooms in on individual commission members as they speak. The video will also be archived afterward.
DCOZ has launched its system to provide access to zoning filings online. The search tool is still somewhat limited, but if you know the case number or name of a case, you can now see the submitted applications, at least for some cases.
Here's one that has a number of supporting documents, including a community letter in support. This is for the Parkside development by Minnesota Avenue Metro.
Not all of them are online yet; for example, a case about Buzzard's Point coming up before the Zoning Commission later this month has no documents listed, nor do older cases like this one at 14th and U from a few years ago.
But this is a great start. Hopefully DCOZ can continue to get more of the filings online.
I've been maintaining a little table of how different development review boards in DC are doing to make their cases and decisions open and accessible. The boards listed are the Zoning Commission (ZC) and Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA), both of which are part of DCOZ; the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB), the Public Space Committee (PSC), NCPC, and the Commission on Fine Arts (CFA).
| BZA/ZC | HPRB | PSC | NCPC | CFA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post submissions | Some | 
|
| From agenda |
|
| Post agendas | 
|
| Email1 |
|
|
| Post staff reports | N/A2 |
| N/A2 |
|
|
| Post agency/ANC comments | 3
|
|
|
|
|
| Receive emailed comments |
|
| Unclear |
|
|
| Post individual comments |
|
|
|
|
|
| Stream audio/video |
|
|
|
|
|
| Archive audio/video |
| Some delay |
|
|
|
| Post actions |
|
| Email1 |
| Slowly |
2 The BZA, ZC, and PSC do not have staff reports on projects. However, the comments from individual government agencies like the Office of Planning and DDOT serve to fill a similar role.
3 The Office of Planning posts its reports on zoning cases on its own website; other agencies do not regularly release their reports.
In addition to the changes listed above, the table now reflects that NCPC posts detailed information about its cases under consideration, once those cases are on the upcoming agenda for consideration by the commission.
NCPC has also recently started tweeting, and during today's meeting, tweeted interesting developments throughout the meeting. Nice job!
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
by Bob on May 5, 2011 4:57 pm • link • report
There are a number of reasons why I write this, but the most (patently?) obvious are:
1. Planning, to be both effective AND community-sensitive, is full-time public policy endeavour. It cannot be done "off the clock" by the Council when they can get around to it or by the Zoning Commission which, under the current Home [sic] Rule [sic] Charter, cannot really conduct broad planning, growth and (re)development policy formulation or even analysis.
2. The very transparency the article above is premised on won't exist until there is a "one-stop shopping" public service body that is clearly charged with developing, updating and implementing a comprehensive development and revitalization plan for the entire City.
3. Speaking as someone who has been a professional urban planner for almost four decades now I can assure you that planning POLICY, as distinct from plan ADMINISTRATION, should be the purview of a body of "directors" or "overseers," if you will, who set the broad policy parameters and then make sure that the executive branch implements it.
The difference here is like the difference between a congressional oversight committee and the line agency of government that it oversees.
At the moment, here in DC, we have a line planning agency with no coherent, ongoing planning POLICY oversight yardstick by which its performance can be measured. The Zoning Commission is (and should remain) just that: a ZONING (i.e. land use regulation) oversight and broad policy body.
4. Right now, planning in DC is something like an aircraft with a fuselage (DCOP and the Deputy Mayor for Econ Development) and only one wing: the Zoning Commission.
We badly need the other wing it this "plane" is ever going to get off of the ground.
5. The broad outlines of my initial thinking is that a "DCPC" ought to be:
- Nine commissioners
- Each would serve a staggered, non-renewal seven-year term
- Three appointed by the mayor
- Three appointed by the Council
- Three directly elected by you and me (yes: you read that right.)
- FT some of the recent revelations about what badly needs overhauling in WMATA (board) governance, the commissioners would NOT be compensated except for "ordinary, due course business expenses."
- They would also be governed by the same recusal and conflict of interest regulations of the District of Columbia Superior Court.
- I don't insist on it, but suggest that DCOP report directly to the DCPC instead of to the Mayor but, again, that is not set in stone with me personally.
There are successful examples of both constitutional arrangements elsewhere in north America: the planning office reporting directly to the chief (elected) executive, and the planning office reporting directly to the planning oversight/governing body.
- THe DCPC would be the body of first instance (equivalent of the court of record) for all planning, zoning, development in and to the District of Columbia.
- It would hear initial appeals of adverse building permit decisions from DCRA.
- Zoning decisions could be appealed from DCPC to the Zoning Commission.
- It would be the adopting body for all District of Columbia plans.
(Approval by the Council after at least one public hearing by the Council on the adopted plan.)
- If DCOP reports directly to DCPC, the commission would be the administrative agent for DCOP.
- If DCOP remains in the executive branch, the Mayor would have to consult with DCPC on all budget, organization and "constitutional" matters in or affecting DCOP before he could enact them.
I could go on but I have worn you all out already I suspect,
Think about it.
As our President loves to say: "If someone out there has another or a better idea, please let me hear it."
Harold Foster, AAG, AICP
Petworth
Ward Four
by Harold Foster on May 6, 2011 9:59 am • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 6, 2011 7:20 pm • link • report
Add a Comment