Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

FEBRUARY 1996 I I I AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I The ABCs of ZBAs By Michael Barrette This past fall, ZoningNews mailed a survey to its subscribers to gather information about zoning boards of appeals (ZBAs). Nearly 600 responses poured in from all over the country. This issue of Zoning News examines a representative group of 50 small and medium-sized communities with a population under 100,000 (see table). The survey focused on basic information such as annual case load, the frequency of meetings, compensation, board structure, and terms of office, and identified several concerns. Caseload and Meetings Most communities are busy with zoning appeals. Only 11 of the 50 jurisdictions reported fewer than 12 cases per year. All but six have boards that meet at least monthly, 34 boards meet monthly, and 10 meet more often. At the low end, the Washington County, Nebraska, board of adjustment has not met since September 1, 1994. "That either means everyone is getting their permits and following the law," says planning administrator Douglas Cook, "or a lot of peopte aren't getting permits, and we haven't caught them." At the opposite extreme, Oldham County, Kentucky, reports 132 cases. More than half the respondents had 30 Or more cases per year; one-fourth reported at least 50. Several communities have tried to limit the number of cases before their boards. According to administrative assistant Jo Evans, Springville, Utah, has dramatically reduced irs caseload. "There was a time when the board members seemed to think that the purpose of the board was to grant variances," she says. "That, combined with a $20 fee, just encouraged people to appeal." But Springville decided to get tough with appellants. "We raised the fee to $100 and required them to sit down with the staffand go over the list of conditions which need to be met in order to win an appeal," Evans says. "When they find out what the legal requirements are, most people are not willing to risk $100." Paul Glauser, community development director for Draper, Utah, says his town raised the variance application fee from $50 to $200. "The fee change, combined with a growing reputation for strictly interpreting the law, has drastically reduced the number of frivolous applications," he says. Administrative approval is another means of streamlining. Theresa Carrington, city planner for Brentwood, Tennessee, says most cases "dealt with either home occupations or accessory structures, so we passed zoning ordinance amendments that allow the staff to administratively approve certain home occupations. That alone has cut our caseload by 44 percent." The ordinance gives the staffa list of allowable home occupations and 10 conditions that must be met. After the revised ordinance was passed, the city advertised the new permirtlng process in the local newspaper. With a population of 20,000, Carrington notes, "we've already issued 300 home occupation permits. That's a significant number." Once permitted, homeowners must renew their permits annually so iq~,~at the city can update its database. The sraffnow can also approve certain classes of accessory structures. This has worked so well that Brentwood is looking for ways to apply it to other areas. "It takes pressure offthe board. Right now they have the lightest load they've had in a very long time," he says. Champaign, Illinois, has succeeded by keeping its code up to date. Zoning administrator Kevin Phillips says the trick is to keep track of the appeals: "If we see a pattern developing, we act on'it because a variance, by its very nature, is a unique circumstance, if it occurs more than once, it's time to look at the code to see if something has been overlooked. If we've already granted the variance under the same conditions, then it is time to add those conditions to the code. That way people don't have to go through all the rigmarole of an appeal. Variances have become so unusual that the last time the board was faced with granting a variance, they looked at us and said, 'Why isn't this in the code?'" Compensation Two of the 50 communities use hearing officers in lieu of zoning boards. Of the remainder, 31 offer no compensation for board members. Thirteen offer monetary compensation ranging from $5 per case in Reading, Pennsylvania, to $10,000 per year for the chair of the Southampton, New York, ZBA. There is no clear threshold for compen- sation. Waverly Hall, Georgia, with a population of 769 and an annual caseload of two appeals, pays $20 per meeting. But in [i}-:.Decome~so ;unusuai ~.i:i :i&,2 t~at.,the': last t~me [~' looked at us and :'said, ,Why isn't this Jn the code?'" Rapid City, South Dakota (pop. 60,738), board members handle 100 cases a year without compensation. Most local governments pay from $15 to $50 per meeting to cover expenses. Several communities have a per diem arrangement and provisions to cover mileage to and from meetings and site inspections. Some communities provide nonmonetary rewards. Lombard, Illinois, holds an annual recognition dinne~- to publicly thank citizen volunteers. Iowa City throws a luncheon for retiring board members and honors each with a certificate of recognition. Webster Groves, Missouri, gives each member a complimentary family pass to the city's recreation complex. In Vail, Colorado, parking is at a premium in the pedestrian- oriented downtown during the ski season, but board members are eligible to receive a parking pass for the city-owned parking structures. Since typical board sessions begin with a pre-meeting at noon followed by the public meeting in the late afternoon, Vail also provides lunches and dinners. But that's just the beginning, says town planner George Ruther: "Participation on all of our boards is a voluntary civic duty, but we like to issue ski and recreation passes as a bonus to offset the time the board members devote to the community."