At a meeting of the Board of Adjustment, members and staff discussed proposed changes to the citys variance-appeals process after a recent instance in which the City Council overturned a board decision.

Board members and staff outlined two options under consideration: require the City Council to make the same specific findings listed in Chapter 15-24(f) before overturning or modifying a board decision, or remove the council from the administrative appeal path so appeals from the board would proceed directly to court under state law.

A staff member explained the trade-offs: "The other option is state law does not require appeals from the board of adjustment to go to a city council. Appeals from the board of adjustment by state law could directly go to court as an appeal." The staff member also noted the practical cost difference: "They do not. They do not. So realistically, if you ever said no, why wouldn't someone just appeal? It doesn't cost them anything other than time realistically." The meeting record shows staff and multiple board members said going to court would be far more expensive for appellants than an appeal to council, which is free.

Several board members said they favored retaining an appeal to an elected body but wanted the council to apply the same factual analysis and checklist the board uses. One board member said the current practice of council overturns is demoralizing after the board has worked through the checklist, and urged keeping "the reasoning and the requirements and the details that we went through more front and center." Another board member described the risk of inconsistent outcomes: if council overturns without applying the boards factors, "Anybody after that can come in, and if there is not a hardship that we can tie to that particular variance, anybody else that walks in that door can get a 5 foot variance." The board repeatedly emphasized that variances should be tied to a specific hardship so they do not effectively change the zoning code.

Staff presented draft redline text (referred to in the packet as "green text") intended to require City Council to consider the exact factors in Chapter 15-24(f) and to make the same specific findings in order to overturn or modify a board decision. "The green text was designed... basically, in order for them to overturn or modify your denial of a various application, they have to consider exactly what you did," staff told the board.

Board members discussed process and timing. Staff said Planning & Zoning would hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council if the board advances an ordinance change. The staff member suggested taking the item to City Council first as a discussion item to gauge receptiveness rather than immediately initiating a formal ordinance process. Staff provided scheduling context: the next City Council meeting cycle in the packet would allow a possible discussion at a meeting on the 17th with a Dec. 1 meeting as the subsequent eligible date; the boards variance public hearing is scheduled for the 20th, and an appeal could potentially be heard by council on Dec. 1 depending on timing.

No formal motion or ordinance vote was recorded at the meeting. The discussion closed with procedural notes about scheduling and an adjournment.