Planning commission session was proper, says state official
CONNELLSVILLE – A city planning commission session to review a building application was conducted properly, according to a spokesman for the state’s Governor’s Center for Local Government Services. Although questions were raised regarding the format of the Wednesday meeting being advertised as a “special meeting” and then conducted as a hearing, the session was not a violation of any state guidelines, said Michael Foreman, policy specialist with the governor’s center.
The commission, through solicitor Kirk Sohonage, had called the meeting to take action on a building permit application submitted by Randy Strickler.
Although the documentation had been filed with the city in May, the commission, of which Strickler is a member, had not publicly taken action on the issue.
The matter was first presented to the panel in October, but because of the controversy surrounding the construction, the commission delayed making a decision until Sohonage reviewed the application and determined any legal ramifications.
“What the planning commission did was normal business with respect to the review of an application and the making of recommendations to the governing bodies,” said Foreman.
“I think the intent was consistent with what the planning commission’s function is. (The questions raised concerning the) advertisement as to whether a hearing can be held when the word ‘meeting’ is used in the publication is only a matter of semantics.
“The hearing wasn’t meant to subterfuge, undermine or mislead the public as to the purpose of the meeting.”
Board member David Leeder raised the issue as to why the meeting was being conducted as a hearing, noting the panel had not been advised of the format beforehand.
“I think the board should have been informed of this first,” Leeder said during the Wednesday hearing.
“Things do have to come out somewhere, sometime, and this is just as good of a place as any, but we should have known about it first.”
Sohonage, meanwhile, said because of the controversial issue and its potential for further litigation, he believed that whatever information was gathered at the meeting and the board’s ultimate decision should be recorded.
In addition to having a stenographer present, Sohonage allowed Strickler’s legal counsel to offer evidence on behalf of the permit application and permitted anyone opposing the issuance of a permit to make similar presentations. After the testimony and cross-examination by the board and the two sides, several members of the audience were permitted to make statements.
Afterward, Sohonage advised the commission of the rules governing its decision, and the board voted to permit the construction.
The state Municipalities Planning Code, which outlines the responsibility of boards and authorities, does allow the commission to hold public hearings and meetings.
“It is one of its duties,” Sohonage said, noting the regulation within the code.
He said that commission chairman Samuel Spotto was advised of the format before Wednesday.
“I spoke to Sam several times, because he was concerned as to what had to be done by him,” said Sohonage.
“Whether he chose to pass that information on to the other board members, I cannot say. I know that I, personally, did not contact them.”
Attorney Richard Bower, who represented Strickler at the meeting, said while he initially objected to the format, it did provide a proper venue for testimony and public comment.
“If anyone could have been prejudiced in this type of setting, it would have been my client,” he said. “Fortunately, it was not that way. I think Mr. Sohonage was correct in conducting the meeting as a hearing. No one was denied from speaking or presenting their information.”
Kara Dolphin-Beem, director of legal and government affairs for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said there was no violation of the Sunshine Act because the legal advertisement advised the public of the session.
“As long as there was the opportunity for public comment, I see no problem with the meeting being held in the form of a hearing,” said Beem.
“The Sunshine Act only requires deliberation, and deliberation could be recognized as a hearing format versus what you would normally perceive as a meeting where you go through an agenda.”