|
Reducing Bias on Zoning'Boards
<br />By Jerry L. Anderson and Erin Sass Eastman
<br />
<br />In most American cities, citizen boards have substantial power over zoning and plannin§.
<br />
<br /> A body called the board el~ zoning adjustment,
<br /> ~r something similar, typically decides apbli-
<br /> cations forvariances and special permits.
<br /> Another group, usually caUed a planning and
<br /> zoning commission, approves subdivision
<br /> plats and makes recommendations re~arding
<br /> zoning amendments to the city council.
<br /> These bodies, here collectively referred
<br />to as "zonin§ boards," can affect one's life in
<br />profound ways. It is the zoning board that
<br />decides whether your next-door neighbor can
<br />build a to-foot fence or that recommends
<br />allowing a Wal-Mart across the street. It is the
<br />zoning board that decides whether you can
<br />build an addition onto your house. A zoning
<br />board decision may allow high-rise apart-
<br />ments for Iow-income residents to be built in
<br />your neighborhood, or allow a boarded.up
<br />drug house next door to be turned into a ,:om-
<br />muni~ center. These decisions may not be -
<br />matters of life or death, but they can pro-
<br />foundly affect both quality of life and.value of
<br />property. Even in cases, where final authority
<br />lies with tee city council, the zoning board
<br />recommendation carries 8real weight.
<br /> Who should be making these decisions?
<br />Despite the importance of these boards, rolo-
<br />tive~y little attention has been focused on
<br />ensuring' that they are balanced and fair. The
<br />mayor or the c[~ council typically appoints
<br />board members. The appointments are subject
<br />to few, if any, restrictions. Often, those who
<br />have the largest interest in development activ-
<br />ity are the most eager to serve. Although these
<br />individuals lend desirable expe~ise to the
<br />enterprise, the failure to appoint a cross sec-
<br />tion of interests may result in a biased board.
<br /> The preconceived interests of board
<br />members can be influential. At one zoning
<br />board meetin§ a few years ago, neighbors
<br />complained about the height ora fence a man
<br />had begun building in his backyard. The pho-
<br />tos showed a nice, straight, wood-slat ~ence.
<br />
<br />The fence builder asked for a height variance.
<br />One zoning board member gave his opinion:
<br />"i've been a contractor all my life, and this is a'
<br />poor-qualib/fence." With that, the board
<br />voted not to give the variance--without any
<br />discussion of the height of the fence at all.
<br /> This story illustrates the subjective nature
<br />of many zoning board decisions. A board
<br />stacked with contractors, realtors, developers,
<br />
<br />attorneys, and'bankers may reach different
<br />conclusions than a beard populated with
<br />schoolteachers and laborers. Bias can arise in
<br />many ways, either for or against a particular
<br />project. A realtor may be biased ioward devel-
<br />opment of a subdivision, so he can sell the
<br />houses in it. A developer, on the other hand,
<br />may be biased against a new development
<br />because she fears the competition. According
<br />to Patricia Saikin, director of the Governmental
<br />Law Center at Albany Law School, ethical
<br />issues, including the perception of bias
<br />and conflicts of'interest, "ha(vel left many
<br />municipalities with a[ack of civic interest for
<br />service on these boards, and the publicity
<br />tarnishes the deficate balance of public trust
<br />and integrity in government that those in the
<br />public service strive hard to maintain."
<br />
<br />I$ THERE BIAS?
<br />THE RESULTS OF TWO STUOIF.5
<br />Although many people perceive that zoning
<br />boards are biased, ver~ littie research exists
<br />on the comp'osition of these groups. In two _
<br />recent studies, we first set out to determine
<br />whether zoning boards fairly represented a
<br />cross section of the community, and second,
<br />whether legal controls on board appointments
<br />
<br />might result in boards with [ess potential for
<br />bias. tn zoo3, we surveyed Iowa zoning
<br />boards and found that they were .dominated
<br />by white-collar professionals, and that a large
<br />percenta~'e of board members had some
<br />direct or indirect interest in zoning matters.
<br />In 2004, a follow-up study of Ore§on zoning
<br />boards set out to determine whether that
<br />state's stricter laws on board appointments
<br />helped'create boards represehting a broader
<br />spect!'um of the community, An anatysis of
<br />both studies fotlows.
<br /> The Iowa Study, In 2003, we conducted
<br />a survey of Iowa's boards of zoning adjustment
<br />and planning and zoning commissions. Our
<br />survey, sent to ali Iowa cities with populations
<br />of more than z,ooo, asked about the occupa-
<br />tions of board members and whether or not the
<br />
<br />80
<br />
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE to,os
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION j page
<br />
<br />
<br />
|