Opinion ID: 4539973
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Technical Review Group

Text: The following facts were found by the court after a bench trial, or are otherwise derived from the record. The TRG is a “self-directed work team”1 in the city, originally established by a former city manager. According to its statement of purpose, “the TRG is to review projects that are submitted for review to the Planning Board, including site plans and subdivisions.” The TRG is made up of city employees, including the chief planner or designee, city engineer, director of code enforcement, fire marshal, police captain, economic development manager or a designee (who chairs the group), and a representative of the conservation commission. The TRG does not have a separate budget and is funded by the departments from which the representatives come. The city manager is the sole appointing authority for the TRG and has the ability to dissolve or expand the TRG without the approval of the city council. The city manager can appoint or remove TRG members at will. Neither the city council nor the planning board has any input or authority over the TRG. The TRG is not included in the city’s charter or any city ordinance. TRG meetings are not considered public meetings by the city for public notice purposes, and therefore no notices are sent and no minutes are taken at the meetings, although dates and times of the meetings are usually listed on the city’s website. Participation and observation by the public are not permitted at TRG meetings. The secretary for the planning department is responsible for scheduling TRG meetings and sending electronic copies of the meeting agenda, applications to be reviewed, and accompanying plans to members of the TRG. The applications and project plans are placed in the planning board file and are available for inspection by the public. TRG members typically communicate using their city e-mail addresses, and although they communicate frequently in their capacity as city employees, they rarely communicate about TRG matters. E-mails sent using city e-mail 1 A self-directed work team is a staff committee formed by the chief executive, or in the city’s case, the city manager. The staff committee is given a charge with a specific purpose, and its members are self-directed to determine how they are going to achieve the directive they have been given. Rochester’s city manager provided two examples, aside from the TRG, of self-directed work teams that exist within the city. 2 addresses are captured on the city e-mail server and can be requested by the public for inspection. At trial, the city manager testified that the TRG members advise applicants as well as the planning board, although the TRG has no binding decision-making authority. The director of planning and development for the city testified that neither the TRG as a whole nor its individual members have the authority to grant or deny conditional use permits, waivers, or variances. The director of planning further testified that the city has a constitutional duty to assist applicants preparing to go before the planning board, and that the TRG is part of the city’s process in meeting that obligation. To that end, the applicant, or the applicant’s agent, presents the application to the TRG. Its members then comment on the plans and suggest changes in accordance with various city regulations, laws, and policies. The TRG does not act as a group; each member makes suggestions based upon that person’s specific knowledge. The applicant is free to disregard the TRG’s recommendations, and is also free to request additional meetings with the TRG before presenting plans to the planning board. Similarly, the applicant may also contact individual members of the TRG after the TRG meeting. The city’s economic development director testified that the TRG is a group of city employees who work in an informal setting where the applicant can ask questions to prepare for presentations to the planning board. Additionally, the economic development director explained that if the TRG did not exist, the applicant would still have to speak to each one of the staff members comprising the TRG separately before going in front of the planning board. The TRG streamlines the process by having all of the department representatives available to an applicant in one place at the same time. The economic development director further testified that the planning board is not a “rubber stamp” for the TRG. She stated that she has witnessed instances in which the planning board has rejected a project that members of the TRG believed was ready for approval, approved a project that members of the TRG expressed concerns about, and ignored the TRG’s comments altogether. The TRG can neither advance nor stop a project from moving forward. Following a TRG meeting, the city’s chief planner prepares a summary of comments made by TRG members during the meeting that is provided to the applicant and placed in the planning board file, which is available for public inspection. The city’s economic development director testified that the TRG does not have records of its own, as its only function is to review applications and assist applicants. However, she stated that the comments made on a project by members of the TRG are loaded into a database, which can then be seen by the planning board. This database is a cloud-based system used by city staff to view applications and their respective comments. It is accessible to the public, and an individual interested in accessing the system can create a 3 free account to view comments made on applications, including those made by TRG members.