People often join planning commissions driven by a sincere desire to improve their communities. Whether motivated by a passion for urban design, a commitment to sustainability, or simply the ambition to make their neighborhoods stronger and more vibrant, these individuals step into their roles with hope and idealism.

That optimism, however, often collides with the realities of local governance. Many commissioners quickly find themselves caught between competing forces, unsure how much influence they truly have—or how to use it effectively.

Planning commissioners are entrusted with authority delegated from the city council to help shape the future of their communities. Yet that authority is tightly constrained by established systems and regulations. While the role may appear powerful on the surface, a commissioner’s ability to directly change outcomes is often limited and indirect.

Understanding this dynamic starts with recognizing the structure of local decision-making.

The Planning Pyramid

Local planning decisions typically follow a three-tier structure.

At the top sits the City Council, the elected body responsible for setting policy, allocating resources, and appointing members to boards and commissions. The council adopts the policies and plans that shape future development.

At the base are municipal planning staff—technical professionals who implement council policy. Staff draft codes, review applications, and enforce regulations within the parameters set by elected officials. While they bring significant expertise, they do not create policy but instead interpret and apply existing rules.

Caught between these two groups is the planning commission: a volunteer board of residents. Commissioners generally neither write policy nor conduct technical reviews. Instead, they rely heavily on reports and recommendations prepared by municipal staff.. Despite their limited authority, they are often perceived by the public as the primary advocates for good design, walkability, and community character.

New commissioners quickly realize their constrained position. They find they have limited power to reject undesirable projects and even less flexibility to support excellent projects unless all regulatory requirements are meticulously satisfied. This revelation frequently leaves commissioners feeling powerless and disillusioned, struggling to reconcile their initial aspirations with the restrictive reality of their roles. This realization can be discouraging, especially for those who joined hoping to make a visible difference. Nevertheless, recognizing this structure doesn’t diminish the role of the planning commission.

A commission’s value is not in stopping projects it doesn’t like, but in asking better questions, identifying misalignment, and helping the community learn from what it is seeing.

Questions That Shift the Conversation

Planning commissioners who understand their position in the system can use it strategically. Here are several questions that often help move conversations toward better outcomes.

“Why are we reviewing this?” Not every project requires a late-night public hearing. Routine proposals that clearly meet the zoning code can often be handled administratively, allowing the commission to focus its time on projects with significant community impact.

“Is this outcome driven by the code?” When a project feels ugly, sprawling, or out of character—but staff confirms it complies with existing regulations—the issue is often the code itself. Commissioners can ask how specific rules produced the outcome being reviewed, helping surface code changes that better align with community goals.

“How does this align with our stated vision?” Even when a commission’s decision isn’t final, its discussion matters. Clearly documenting where a proposal supports—or undermines—the community vision can provide valuable guidance to elected officials and staff. This feedback can also build political support for updating outdated policies.

“Is the process working as intended?” Commissions can play a role in improving how decisions are made. Projects aligned with community goals should move efficiently, while those that raise concerns may warrant deeper review. The goal isn’t simply approval or denial, but ensuring attention is focused where it matters most.

“What do residents actually value here?” Commissioners may not be technical experts, but they bring lived experience. By grounding comments in local knowledge—places people love, streets that work, neighborhoods that function well—they can reframe abstract debates in human terms. Leading with care for the community often has more influence than technical critique alone.

When planning commissioners focus on learning, alignment, and clarity rather than control, their influence grows. They help surface patterns, reveal misalignments between policy and outcomes, and create space for better decisions over time.

The role may not come with sweeping authority. But when used well, it can still meaningfully shape the future of a place.