Sample Scripts for the Planning Commission Hearing
Sample Script #1: City Code (2 min, 45 sec)
I oppose the development in its current form because it does not adhere to city code—so much so that Adam Rogalski is seeking multiple variances. If he wants to build in our neighborhood, he should play by the rules.
Mr. Rogalski’s proposal conflicts with Section 5.11.06, which requires a 75-foot buffer between an environmental feature and any building, pavement, grading, or removal of vegetation. His plan meets none of the criteria for permitting a reduction to either 25 or 50 feet. Specifically, he plans to remove over 200 trees. A natural drainage course—an intermittent stream running west to east on the parcel, will be altered. And substantial amount of fill will likely be needed due to known water issues on this lot. All of these facts should be disqualifying.
Mr. Rogalski’s proposal also conflicts with Section 5.12.09, which requires any Special Land Use to maintain consistency with the city’s “Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District.” We are a low-density neighborhood. This is not a low-density development. City code also requires minimizing any adverse impact on things like “neighborhood walkability” and “existing character.” Both will be adversely affected by the addition of 283 daily vehicle trips to streets with no sidewalks and the construction of a development 2.6 times the density of the surrounding area.
All we are asking is for the city to follow its own rules.
When a proposed development is at odds with not one but three city ordinances, the problem is not with the neighborhood or the city code. The problem is with the development.
Sample Script #2: Wetland Buffer (2 min, 10 sec)
Section 5.11.06 of the Grand Rapids municipal code requires a 75-foot buffer between to protect any environmental feature found on the lot. The wetland delineation identified not one but four wetlands. The independent analysis by Elise Tripp, a retired wetland scientist with 37 years of experience, found two more potential wetlands within the construction envelope.
Adam Rogalski wants the city to let him reduce the legally required buffer to just 25 feet, but he has provided no justification for doing so—other than the fact that he doesn’t want to have to reduce the footprint of his development and thus cut into his profits.
He is going to remove hundreds of trees responsible for absorbing thousands of gallons of water. He is going to destroy at least one intermittent stream.
To qualify for a reduction, city code requires him to preserve natural features to the maximum extent possible. His plan does the opposite.
The wetlands on this site play a crucial role in managing water within the area. They provide sorely needed habitat for plant and animal species within an urban environment. They should not be torn up just so Adam Rogalski can cram 5 more buildings onto this lot.
If the 75 foot buffer is maintained, he will still be able to build at least 10 buildings (20 units). That should be more than enough for him to profit handsomely from this development. Please do not allow him to satisfy his greed at the expense of our wetlands.
Sample Script #3: Pedestrian Safety (2 min)
The Trip Generation Analysis submitted with this proposal projects an additional 283 daily vehicle trips, calling this impact “minimal.”
With respect, this claim defies belief.
Here’s what the traffic assessment fails to consider:
The fact that cars routinely speed through our neighborhood in excess of 40 miles per hour and blow through 4-way stop signs. Grand Rapids Police data confirms this. They’ve pulled over dozens of cars during relatively short patrols–including 18 in one 3-1/2 hour stretch last April.
The fact that none of the streets around this development have sidewalks, despite repeated appeals to the city.
Most importantly, the fact that children have to walk these streets every day without protection. Shawmut Hills Elementary is home to 300 students and serves as a transportation hub for GRPS. Why don’t these students deserve somewhere safe to walk to and from school?
Make it make sense.
The city has told residents that some unspecified improvements are in the five-year plan for future road projects, estimating that something might be done by 2030. That’s not good enough.
Our children shouldn’t have to wait 4 years or more to be safe on city streets. They shouldn’t have to wait until years after this development puts hundreds more cars on our roads, increasing the risk of harm.
Improvements to pedestrian safety must come before—not after—any new development.
Sample Script #4: Density (1 min, 40 sec)
The city’s Master Plan, Bridge to Our Future, calls for new development projects to “build upon existing neighborhood development” and to “minimize differences in scale” between the two.
Adam Rogalski’s proposal does not meet this threshold. If approved, his development would be more than two-and-a-half times the density of the surrounding community.
We are a low-density neighborhood, consisting almost entirely of single-family homes. It would be one thing if this proposed development were on the edge of the neighborhood, somewhere close to a major road like Leonard or Lake Michigan Drive. But that’s not the case here. This proposed development is right in the middle of our neighborhood, far from major roads.
We get there is a need for more housing of all types. But new development should align with the character of the existing neighborhood.
We know there is talk of updating the city’s zoning laws. But you have a responsibility to evaluate this proposal based on the existing zoning laws, not the laws that might be passed at some future point.
By that standard, this proposed development should be rejected—and the developer sent back to the drawing board.
Sample Script #5: Neighborhood Character (1 min, 50 sec)
I want to tell you what Adam Rogalski doesn’t get about our neighborhood.
We’re not anti-development. We care passionately about our community and its future.
The people in this neighborhood don’t just come and go. They put down roots. It’s not hard to see why. We’re in the enviable position of being close to downtown but with plenty of green space.
We have people who have lived in this neighborhood their whole lives. We have people who grew up here as kids and came back to raise a family.
We’re not a wealthy neighborhood for the most part. Most of the homes are modest and relatively affordable—perfect for families just getting started. Perfect for families who want to make a commitment to our community. The kind of families move here and stay—which is good not just for our neighborhood, but for the city as a whole.
That’s what we want to maintain. We want to welcome new neighbors from all backgrounds and ways of life. And we want to maintain what makes our community such an attractive place to live. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Adam Rogalski doesn’t get that. He wants to impose his own vision of development on our neighborhood—one that prioritizes profit over community.
I’m asking the Planning Commission to send him back to the drawing board and build with our neighborhood, instead of against it.
Sample Script #6: Community Engagement (1 min, 25 sec)
When 519 neighborhood residents sign a petition opposing a proposed new development, you should listen.
When 95% of responses to the city’s own survey voice opposition, you should listen.
As city officials, you work for us, not the developer.
I do not oppose any and all new development in my neighborhood. But I, along with the overwhelming majority of my neighbors, oppose this development. It does not fit the character or density of the existing neighborhood. It will damage or destroy sensitive environmental features, including wetlands. It will make already unbearable traffic and pedestrian safety problems even worse.
Adam Rogalski has not listened to our neighborhood. He is trying to shove something down our throats that almost none of us want.
I urge the Planning Commission to consider the concerns of existing residents. If Adam wants to put an indelible stamp on our neighborhood, he—and the city—need to listen to the people who call it home.