Planning Organization in Third Tier Suburbs-First Installment

In a recent post on Cyburbia, Vagaplanner referred to a one-person department as possibly having too much influence. He was concerned with being a “’one man show’ when it comes to making recommendations on new development and planning related issues within the community.” It got this blogger thinking about one man departments including who they report to, responsibilities, workloads, and formal functions. This blog is the first of series of comments on one person departments and will primarily deal with the staffing of such a department.

In the third tier suburbs, the staffing of a planning office is essential in the successful implementation of land use controls and land use planning. In Massachusetts, the size of a community sometimes dictates the amount of staffing for planning functions. For example, the City of Worcester with a population of over 172, 000 (2000 Census) had over forty planners in both municipal staffing positions including the Office of Planning and Community Development, Bureau of Land Use Control, Informational Systems and GIS operations office, along with quasi independent agencies such as the Housing Authority, Redevelopment Authority, and Community Development Corporations. In the meantime a third tier suburb such as Ashland, Massachusetts (which is this blogger’s working community) has a population of 14,674 (2000 census) with only one planner on staff. In a large staffing situation, planning functions are segmented out to various staff members, while the one person staff has to be a jack of all trades.

There are 351 incorporated communities in Massachusetts; however the organizational structures of these local government units vary depending on their communities home rule charter. For example, the Town of Brookline which is an inner ring suburb of Boston has a population of 57,107 (2000 Census). This community is basically totally build-out with very few areas primed for “greenfield development.” At the same time, the City of Leominster which as a population of 41,303 (2000 Census), still has a number of “greenfield sites” available for development. Nevertheless, the staffing for the two separate planning departments are relatively similar in size; however, the organizational structure of the community has a bearing on which items are prioritized and completed for implementation procedures. In Brookline there are bi-annual town meeting votes while the City Council in Leominster meet on a bi-weekly basis. For example, zoning amendments and map changes can occur throughout the year in Leominster , while in Brookline the timing of these actions are much more limited in scope.

A few years ago, this blogger worked on a staff comparison of 85 of the 351 communities in the state. This study utilized the Massachusetts State Department of Education’s categorization of the “Kind of Community” for comparison purposes. The community categorization were based on seven sub-classes of communities: one, economically developed suburbs; two, growth communities; three, residential suburbs; four, rural economic centers, five, urban centers; six, retirement/artisan areas; seven, small rural communities.

Of the 85 communities studied, forty two were economically developed suburbs, eighteen were residential suburbs, twelve were rural economic centers, eleven were growth centers, one was a urbanized center, and one was a small rural community. Population ranged from 3,939 (1999 esimate) in Boylston, a residential suburb, to a high of 66,910(1999 estimate) in Framingham, an economically developed suburb. Of these eighty-five communities fifty seven had a Town Planner on staff. The information on the remaining communities was somewhat lacking, however these communities may rely on volunteers and other assigned from regional planning agencies. Also many of these communities had additional staff in allied positions including Conservation Agents, Town Engineers, Assistant Planners, and GIS professionals. Twenty two communities had Conservation Agents, twenty-eight communities had a Town Engineer, and thirty other communities had staff planners or technicians in GIS. Some of these communities doubled up functions such as the Community of Oxford which has its Town Engineer serving as Town Planner as well.

Twenty two communities were examined in more detail for their respective planning activities.
Where there was available data, the category of subdivision plans including cluster developments and frontage lot developments (ANRS in Massachusetts) ranged from a low of three to a high of fifty-four. Next, the category of processing commercial site plans ranged from a low of four to a high of nineteen. Three contiguous communities of Ashland, Holliston, and Hopkinton had subdivision activity totaling 73 items, while only two communities outside of the Interstate 495 belt area had that much activity. As for zoning changes, these same three contiguous communities had thirty-six zoning amendments and map changes. Only a few other communities within this study group matched these types of activities, namely Middleton, and Tewksbury for zoning changes, and Charlton, Oxford, and Sudbury for subdivision activity.

Looking at the staffing levels of these three communities: one community namely Holliston had a Building Inspector who served in a dual capacity for a short times as the Town Engineer. The other two towns had no Town Engineer. All three had one person planning staffs and each had allied assistance with a Conservation Agent.

Six towns, which were all located in the Metro West section of metropolitan Boston, were examined in terms of reporting authority by the planning staff. Of the six towns, the Town Planner reported to the Town Manager in only one town, in all other communities the Town Planner reported directly to the elected Planning Board of that community.

In summation, the amount of staffing has a direct relationship on the workload of the Planning Office. If a community is growing or has a lot of development activity, this planner will be extremely busy in his or her workload.