After a year or so elapsed, I heard from him again. Mediation should be considered for those land use disputes that allow discretion on the part of decision-makers. In this instance the zoning board of appeals must make a legal finding as to hardship. That finding is not negotiable. On the other hand, there are many instances where land use decision making involves considerable discretion and therefore, provides opportunities for negotiation.
Considerable leeway is left for negotiation, if a commission chooses to do so.
Another example is a garden-variety rezoning, such as a change from residential to commercial. Here planning commissions, when rendering advice to local legislative bodies, such as city councils, generally have a great deal of discretion. In this context, the use of a mediator to resolve disputes between various factions in the community may be not only appropriate but beneficial. Negotiation is appropriate since the standards for rendering PUD decisions allow for flexible decision-making. The examples mentioned concern conflicts or potential conflicts occurring before permits are issued.