|
Consequently, he is pa~d $36,978 a year, and his board
<br /> colleagues receive $3,5~0.
<br /> And what about th{ nation's largest city? The Big Apple tips
<br /> the scale, weighing in ~ith a full-tlme five-member board that
<br /> meets weekly to reviev~250 cases a year. The board chairperson
<br /> is paid $I 17,000, the Nice-chair $96,000, and the remaining
<br /> members $88,000 a yeltr.
<br /> Of course, moneta~ compensation is not the only way to
<br /> reward citizen volunteers. Last month, Zoning News highlighted
<br /> several alternatives offered by smaller communities, but this
<br /> personal touch seems td be lacking in larger cities. In this survey,
<br /> only Glendale, Arizona,lspecifically cited efforts to recognize the
<br /> contributions of its boa}d members. Planner Paul Langdon says,
<br /> "When we're sitting in i hearing, it is evident that they have the
<br /> hardest job of all. They ~re a very dedicated group, always
<br /> prepared, and they neve{r go into a hearing without first paying a
<br /> visit to the subject site."~Langdon says compensation begins with
<br /> treating the board members like valued colleagues, "giving them
<br /> the support they need fi~ding data, obtaining maps, and things
<br /> like that. It also includet providing them with business cards that
<br /> ~dentzfy them as memb~s of the board of adjustment.
<br /> Compensation also includes food. When the board goes into a
<br /> special session, the city ~rovides meals. Twice a year, board
<br /> members are honored a~a specml droner, and when thmr terms
<br /> expire, there is a hanquek at which the mayor presents each
<br /> member with a plaque, i
<br /> Langdon believes thd volunteer system is an asset. Although
<br /> the mayor and city council formally appoint the members, the
<br /> appointees are selected Ooma list of people who have expressed
<br /> interest in public service. Citizens volunteer and wait for their
<br /> turn on the list. "It's often reassuring to an applicant to find out
<br /> that the board me,mbers{are volunt,,eers, not political appointees
<br /> or city employees, says .~Langdon. It means that decisions
<br /> aren't made because the ~ayor backs an idea or because the staff
<br /> wants it so. It is a sign diat they have a fair shot."
<br />
<br /> Terms of Office/Board Structure
<br />State enabling legislatio~ dictates specific terms of office, but it
<br />is valuable to compare s~me of the different styles. The length
<br />of term varies from one ~o six years, with most communities
<br />opting for three- or five-~ear terms. Seven communities have
<br />term limits, with two-re(tn limits prevailing. Two cities limit the
<br />number of terms to two,[not including the completion of an
<br />unfinished term. Berkeley, California, limits its board members
<br />to eight one-year terms.:
<br /> Most board membersiare appointed, usually by the mayor,
<br />the city council, a council committee, or by officers of the
<br />district court to which a~peals may be taken from the local
<br />jurisdiction. Most communities have an appointed board that
<br />hears the appeals ofzonir~g decisions. Others route permit and
<br />zoning applications throt~gh the appointed board and reserve
<br />the appeal of zoning deci{ions for the city council. A third
<br />approach combines this h{.y requiring one or more elected
<br />council members on the 4ppointed board..
<br /> The size of appeals bolrds varies from place to place. Of the
<br />48 jurisdictions with boa{ds, 28 have five-member boards. Eight
<br />communities opted for scl/eh-member boards, six have nine-
<br />member boards, and thre.~ have three members. Thirteen of the
<br />48 communities also have~ one or more alternate members who
<br />serve in the absence ofa r}gular member or when a member is
<br />excused from a case due to a conflict of interest.
<br /> Among the more unusual arrangements are the 13-member
<br />board in Dade County, F!orida, and the six-member board in
<br />
<br />Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia. The most unusual
<br />arrangement is in Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana. Its 500
<br />cases a year are too much work for a volunteer board. Rather
<br />than budget for a professional board, Indianapolis-Marion
<br />County found a way to maintain its volunteer system by using
<br />15 board members organized on three separate boards. Each
<br />new case is assigned to the docket of one of the three boards.
<br />There is one board meeting a week, but the boards rotate so that
<br />
<br />each board meets once
<br />every three weeks.
<br /> Boards with three
<br />members present a peculiar
<br />problem. Coconino
<br />County, Arizona, is
<br />subdivided into five
<br />districts. As recently as
<br />three years ago, each district
<br />had its own three-member
<br />board. Principal planner
<br />Sue Pratt says it is difficult
<br />to provide cons!stent service
<br />with three members. "It
<br />only took two members to
<br />get a quorum, but split
<br />votes resulted in a denial,"
<br />she says. "Cases would
<br />frequently get continued
<br />just so we could wait for a
<br />meeting of a full board. It
<br />
<br />}.~-,5~:. reassuring to an.
<br />
<br />{':5.~'~')'that the board
<br />}'.5~57' members are
<br /> · ~'.. volunteers· not
<br /> political appointees
<br /> ' 0r ci~ employees
<br /> ... it is a sign
<br /> that they have a
<br /> fair shot."
<br />
<br /> was especially difficult in the really rural districts that have very
<br /> little development because some of those boards met once every
<br /> 10 years."
<br /> The county reorganized the appeals process both to
<br />streamline and to provide better service. There is now a single,
<br />five-member board hearing cases from the entire county. Board
<br />appointments are based on geographic criteria so that the whole
<br />county is represented, with one board member from each
<br />district. "It's worked out very well," Pratt says. "Now we have
<br />regular meetings that are better run, and the board members are
<br />better informed. Decisions are a lot more fact-oriented and
<br />reasonable. It has resulted in fewer complaints, and it saves
<br />time. There is one meeting, one set of minutes, and one agenda
<br />to prepare."
<br /> Geography is a common selection criterion. Seven
<br />jurisdictions in this survey have formal requirements for
<br />choosing appointees based on geography. One community
<br />reported using geography as an informal criterion, wary of
<br />the appearancelof bias if too many board members come
<br />from one place. Another selection criterion is professional.
<br />Four cities and one county have ordinances that require the
<br />board to include members of specific professions. Most
<br />often, these rules call for attorneys, architects, or engineers.
<br />Requirements for real estate brokers, general contractors or
<br />building trades people, and "professionals with a financial
<br />background" are less common. New York City gc;es for the
<br />brass ring. Its five-member board must include three
<br />professionals with a minimum of 10 years experience,
<br />including a registered architect, a licensed engineer, and a
<br />fully credentialed city planner.
<br />
<br />Meetings and Caseload
<br />Every respondent in this survey has a board that meets at least
<br />monthly; 26 communities have a monthly meeting, and 24 have
<br />
<br />
<br />
|