After hearing from some concerned citizens, the council saw fit to not appoint any of the three new applicants to the Board Of Adjustment.
Citizens gave rational reasons why they believed Don Cox & Alan Dankwerth were not desirable candidates. The council members evidently considered this, as well as the fact that the position on the Board is unique, as they do NOT report to the council, and are in fact, the "court of last resort."
If an entity is turned down by the council, the B of A can over-rule. As such, the majority of the council felt it was prudent to make any other qualified candidates who may not have been aware of the opportunity to volunteer, to do so.
Only Mayor Loomis & Vice Mayor Kunisch saw fit to push the ONLY candidates available to serve on this critical board. Fortunately, common sense prevailed as Garner, Latas, Carter & Gillaspie voted to continue this consent agenda item and have other candidates submit their resume.
All other volunteer positions to serve on various boards or commissions were unanimously approved.
17 comments:
Actually, I think there are some misconceptions about what the Board of Adjustment does. They have two functions, to hear appeals of zoning interpretations and to hear requests for variances from the zoning code, which are only granted in very narrow circumstances. They do not hear appeals on Council action. Also, any decision by the Board may be appealed to Superior Court. Check out OVZCR Section 21.6 and ARS 9-462.06. No comment on wht happend last night, just trying to clear up what I perceive to be a misapprehension on the amount of power this board has.
Cyclcone--- You are correct. I failed to note the fact that after the B of A, one has the opportunity to move on to Superior Court. However, that would be even more costly.
You need only ask Barry Gillaspie who a few years ago spent his own money appealing the council's actions as it pertained to a zoning issue in close proximity to his home.
For most people who have no option but to appeal to the B of A, that is, in essence, the "court of last resort."
Again, lets not perpetuate a misconception. Mr. Gillaspie's appeal, if I recall correctly, was on an interpretation by the Zoning Administrator, Bryant Nodine, not on any action taken by the Council. Refer to the BoA minutes from 1/27/04.
cyclone1
Relative to your phrase "which are only granted in very narrow circumstances" - unfortunately it appears there are some in this community who, in practice, might water that ideal down to "which are SUPPOSED to be only granted in very narrow circumstances" and thus could follow with a loosely interpreted form of application. Your written version is, in fact, the ideal and should be followed in the manner in which you wrote it. Based on certain realities, many want more assurance. As to appeals to the Superior Court, yes, that is THE remedy, but, that can be costly, time consuming, and
overly burdensome.
You did a good job in the clarity of your explanation, but, as always, there is the human factor and that is where "misapprehension"
comes into play.
Zev-
I apprecite your comments and agree that as huamn beings, the ideal can be subverted. What I was referring to is that there are 5 specific findings that the Board is suposed to base their decision on - whether that always happens I cannot say. I agree that court proceedings can be cost prohibitive for many, but I think it's extremely important, if we are going to discuss/argue/debate the types of issues that show up on this blog, that everyone have all the facts. I can completely understand the fear of appointing inappropriate board memebers (not making any judgments on last night) where the board can overturn Council action, make decisions with no further recourse, and have no accountability. That, however, is just not the case with the Board of Adjustment. Members serve at the pleasure of the Council, just like all the others, they cannot overturn Council action and their decisions are appealable in court. Those are the facts that I think people should have before assessing the appointment process.
Cyclone1 - and I appreciate your comments as they contribute greatly to the 'informative' process, fact based and dispassionate - WELL DONE
Thank You Cyclone.
I bet very few residents really understand the function of the Board of Adjustment and I am one of them!
This Board of Adjustment may have a limited or small scope of power but to those involved they are all powerful.
Sorry to be a little off track but I would like to express some of my thoughts.
More info and background checking needs to be done before anybody is appointed to boards and commissions.
It seems some of the people being considered have too many connections to entities that benefit directly or indirectly to decisions they will make.
Oro Valley needs to seriously look at having some type of Ethical Standards guideline or code and also a type of Conflict of Interest code or policy.
Does anybody else out there ever wonder or question how xyz company gets the bid for jobs using OV funds?
I just feel that with the amount of money spent and the info about the Board of Adjustment now being discussed perhaps there needs to be a study and possible revision of how the town conducts business.
We all need to ask questions and ask our council members to not blindly accept the answers provided by some of the town staff.
It was mentioned that a person under consideration for a seat on a board was perhaps not a resident.
Well I guess we need a legal definition of resident.
Geez hate to split hairs but this has to be looked at.
I also hope that council members make it their business to poke their nose in the details of how things are run.
It is not always what they tell you it is also what they don't tell you that counts.
Anywhoo just my opinion from a coyote in OV.
Ms coyote-
1. All public contracts have to go through a bidding process - advertisement, acceptance of bids, opening of the bids in public, etc. - and then the award goes to the lowest responsible bidder. Check out the Town's procurement website for info on projects currently up for bid and the Town's procurement code.
2. Not sure about an "ethical code" but all Town officials, including volunteer board and commission memeber, are subject to the conflict of interest statutes -ARS 38-501 - 38-511.
3. A resident is someone who lives within the boundaries of the Town -pretty simple. I think there may have been some confusion as one of the exiting BoA members is leaving because they moved out of Town. Also, the comment made was that the person was registered to vote in unincorporated Pima County - not quite sure what that meant, but perhaps they simply haven't updated their voter registration??
Allow me to post the information from the Town of Oro Valley as it pertains to the Board of Adjustment. Please note--- The B of A "makes the final decisions on items that come before it."
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board that has the power to review and decide on administrative decisions or zoning requirements that create unnecessary hardships in the development of property because of exceptional or extraordinary conditions. Unlike other boards or commissions, the Board of Adjustment makes the final decisions on items that come before it. The Board of Adjustment is a five-member board. They meet on the 4th Tuesday of every month at 3:00 p.m.
Art-
I am not sure but are you implying I got something wrong? Yes, BoA decisions are final, meaning they are not simply recommendations like most action of other boards and commissions. However, the memebers are appointed just like all the others and can be removed just like all the others.
While the info you posted in accruate, I think it comes from the Clerk's website description of the Board. If people really want to get a handle on what the Board does, read the zoning code and statute I cited earlier.
Cyclone--- You obviously come across as an individual that is quite familiar with town codes, zoning, General Plan, etc. I certainly did not mean to imply anything that may have been misconstrued by you or others. My intent---as is obviously yours, is to present the information as accurately as possible.
I endorse Zev's point made in an earlier comment: "I appreciate your comments as they contribute greatly to the 'informative' process, fact based and dispassionate -WELL DONE."
I found it interesting that even after some citizens spoke about why Cox and Dankwerth should not be appointed to the Board of Adjustment (namely, lack of civility issues that are public knowledge) and the fact that the process for eliciting applicants was flawed in that graduates from the Citizens Planning Institute were not contacted, Loomis and Kunisch STILL voted to appoint Cox and Dankwerth.
Why were they afraid to continue the interview process and allow CPI graduates to apply? Why did they want Cox and Dankwerth on that board?
Reminds me of when Carter motioned to keep Doug McKee on P&Z for another 6 months, and Don Cox responded, "This was a political buddy set-up" and "Don't single out one person because he is your buddy and show him favoritism."
I'll bet Cox (and Dankwerth) didn't have a problem with being the recipients of the 2 votes in favor of the political buddy system last night.
Some additional clarification. At last night's meeting Vice Mayor Al Kunisch stated erroneously that B of A members serve at the pleasure of the council. Council Member Latas corrected that misconception, pointing out that B of A members are a quasi judicial group and do not report to council.
Also Town attorney Tobin Rosen noted a conflict between the Zoning Code & OV policy as to term limits. Mr. Tobin stated that the zoning code overrides the OV policy and there are no term limits as of now.
I watched the Council Meeting on the video last night and I recall one of the Council Members, if not the Mayor stating that to remove a member of the BofA was not as easy as the other boards. I will look again and see if I can find it.
It wasn't Loomis. It was Salette that stated it would take "official misconduct" to remove an appointed B of A member.
Bravo Council. Bravo.
21.6(D)(4) Removal
The Town Council has the authority to remove, by majority vote, any member for neglect of duty, inefficiency, or misconduct in office.
For all others: They serve at the pleasure of the Council most have adopted rules as to when someone should be removed from office.
Post a Comment