Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 9/5/2002 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STUDY AND TRAINING SESSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:10 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cindy Lewis, Chairman Bill Adler, Vice Chairman Lyra Done, Member(Arrived at 3:21 p.m.) Bart Schannep, Member Colleen Kessler,Member STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine,Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Linda Hersha, Secretary II Mike Valencic, Zoning Inspector Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Chairman Lewis welcomed new Member Colleen Kessler to the Board. Chairman Lewis moved Item 10 forward on the agenda with Item 1 to follow. 10. TRAINING: PRESENTED BY THE TOWN LEGAL DEPARTMENT Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney, reviewed the State Statues and the scope of the responsibility relating to the Board of Adjustment. The following issues were addressed. • The Board of Adjustment delegated power. • Granting of variances. • Appeals. • Boundary issues. • Quasi-Judicial Boards. • The authority of the Board. • Evidence presented by the applicant. • Having a good and clear record. • The granting of Special Privilege. • Special Circumstances. • Property rights. • Zoning issues and rezoning issues. • Conflicting conditions. • How the Board's rules apply to the handicaped. • Reconsiderations of a case. • Guideline for reconsiderations of a case. 09/05/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 Vice Chairman Adler asked if the application for variances revealed or detailed the particulars, such as abuse, exceeding power of authority or errors of law. He suggested that the application be revised to direct the applicant on what documentation they would need to provide to the Board. He pointed out that it was the responsibility of the applicant to make their case. Mr. Andrews agreed. Vice Chairman Adler suggested that a laminated notice be placed on the podium during a hearing for the applicant, so that they are reminded of the 5 standards. He stated that the 5 standards should be included in the staff report when an appeal came before the Board. Vice Chairman Adler asked if there were any guidelines that the Chairman could follow when considering the reconsideration of a case so that the Board would be consistent. Also, he asked if the Board could get more direction from staff regarding these types of hearings. Mr. Andrew explained that a reconsideration hearing would be totally up to the Chair as to whether or not to accept the case. He further explained that if the Board desires, it could adopt new standards and stipulations such as what would be considered new evidence in a case. The Board agreed that the reconsideration for appeals be placed on a future agenda and asked that staff review proper procedures as it pertains to an appeal request. Items 1 through Item 8 were presented by Vice Chairman Adler. 1.EVALUATION PROCEDURE FOR BOARD MEMBERS Vice Chairman Adler explained that he had suggested in the past that all Board and commission members adopt a procedure for evaluating members in terms of their performance. He explained that it would be a good idea that the Board of Adjustment be viewed as a team that was interested in getting the best possible results. He explained that it was extremely important for all members of the Board of Adjustment to be well prepared and well versed in the Town Code and all of the particulars. He explained that the evaluation of a member's performance was very important, so that if a member chose to apply for reappointment, they would understand how they were viewed during their term. He suggested that the"360 Degree Feedback"process be used for a peer appraisal evaluation. Also, he suggested that a subcommittee be formed to develop a sample questionnaire that would be reviewed, approved and adopted by the Board of Adjustment. He explained that this form would be circulated to all participating members, including those members that were reapplying. Mr. Andrews stated that the only problem he had with the suggestion was that the Board was a quasi-judicial body and any stipulations or rules developed by the Board would need to be submitted to Council for approval. He further explained that as a quasi- 09/05/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 judicial body, the evaluation could be perceived in a negative manner and the individual could get the feeling of being ganged up on by the Board. Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator reported that recommendations had been submitted to the Government Review Task Force for review pertaining to the evaluation process of a Board member, but there had been no feedback from the Task Force regarding the matter. Chairman Lewis stated that it would be better and a more fair situation if the evaluation was conducted by an outside source. She stated that to evaluate each other would be a little awkward. She explained that there needed to be a person involved that could review the situation objectively. However, she disagreed with the peer evaluation idea because it would not be a benefit to the Board in any way and some of the pitfalls could be rather severe. Member Done stated that it would be a very, very sensitive situation to conduct a peer evaluation between members because of a continued working environment between the individual and the Board; therefore, she would not be in favor of the idea. Member Schannep was not in favor of the peer evaluation review process but felt that it was important to get permission from the Town Council to gain the authority to remove a member. Member Done agreed. The Board agreed that the evaluation procedure and the removal of a member should be placed on the next regular meeting agenda. 2. PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (P.A.D.)VARIANCES—HEIGHT, SETBACK ENCROACHMENT HANDLED BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MULTI—LOT SETBACK, HEIGHT, ENCROACHMENT VARIANCES Vice Chairman Adler explained that if there was a procedure within the Planned Area Development requirements that would allow the Board of Adjustment to participate in the decision making process, he would be very interested in having the Board involved. He explained that he was interested in having the Planned Area Development amended so that height, setback and encroachment issues would come before the Board of Adjustment as opposed to being handled administratively or by the Planning and Zoning Commission(P&Z). He explained that the Planning&Zoning Commission had no criteria or standards for judging variance nor did the Development Review Board. He explained that rather than having variances handle by a group that had no established criteria,he would prefer that these matters of such importance be handled by the Board of Adjustment because the Board had standards that were consistent and predictable. Vice Chairman Adler suggested that the Board recommend to the Town Manager and the Town Council that the Board of Adjustment manages the Planned Area Development variances. Mr. Andrews was opposed to the idea of the Board of Adjustment addressing or suggesting any recommendation to the General Plan. However, he explained that there 09/05/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 4 were aspects in the Town Code,where the Board could propose to the Town Council a recommendation that would allow the Board to make certain recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He explained that there was a draft of the new Zoning Code Amendments but they had not been approved by Council. He then read the following: "In view of the Board's finding in a certain case, where as a result of a recurrence of certain problems, the Board of Adjustment may recommend a study of Zoning Code changes and Zoning District changes to the Planning Commission. Any member of the Board of Adjustment, or the Board of Adjustment as a whole, may propose changes to the Town Zoning Code and such will be set for public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission." He explained that this could be an avenue the Board might want to consider pursuing. Vice Chairman Adler suggested continuing Item 3 through Item 8 to a future meeting. 9. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR TERM OF OFFICE Chairman Lewis suggested that the current rules pertaining to the elected Chair and Vice Chair remain intact. Chairman Lewis gave a brief recap of potential future agenda items: 1. Establish criteria for reconsideration of Board of Adjustment decisions to be used by the Chair for inclusion on the agenda. 2 Adding recommendation to a policy to remove a member for cause. 1. The evaluation process and procedure used for evaluating a Board of Adjustment member. 2. Request for expansion of duties of the Board of Adjustment to the Town Council. 3. To determine a policy regarding the Chair and Vice Chair terms and term limits. 4. To solidify options on good record versus record an incomplete record. Vice Chairman Adler suggested that the Capital Improvement Plan discussion be continued to the next regular meeting. The Board agreed that the next meeting be held on September 24, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Lewis adjourned that meeting at 5:12 p.m. Resp ctfully submitted, iodyi Linda Hersha, Secretary II