12/09/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- -- -------- . broader consensus of a more diverse group. perhaps on peer level. will perhaps arrive at a more equitable and quicker conclusion. The board's members also e have a concern about CIC's comments on how costly and cumbersome the process is to have five Zoning Board of Appeals members reviewing a matter. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a volunteer group. By going to a Hearings Official. there would be additional costs. If CIC's concerns are directed at the cost of delay to developers. then the board would agree with CIC. If the delays could be cut down. it would save the developers money. If a person is developing property and follows the procedures to get a building permit. these measures will come up upon application. It will show whether property is being developed according to code. When an item comes to the Zoning Board of Appeals after the fact, the person already has the project completed and failed to get a building permit for the project. Now the builder may be faced with a requirement of having to tear the project down. These things are frightening and upsetting to people. An equitable decision must be reached. The Zoning Code requirements are in the public interest. The Zoning Board of Appeals agrees with CIC that the hearings panel process is less equitable than hearing by the full council. Few appeals are received and they are quickly resolved. Staff usually handles about 50 percent of them and recommends granting of variances for the applicants. Seventy-five to 80 percent of all the appli- cations are granted and seldom is there an appeal from a denial. The broader base of the entire council makes more sense. They do have some of CIC's work and are concerned as to whether or not applicants are confusing what the Zoning Board of Appeals does with what is done with respect to the entire Building Division and the delays and confusion experienced there. The process should be continually improved, and if it can be speeded up it would be helpful. He is e afraid that the Zoning Board of Appeals' experiences as voiced by the members do not support GIG's findings, except with respect to the time delay to the appli- cant in getting the issue resolved. That delay is usually a maximum of 54 days. Mr. Hamel noted appreciation for hearing from both GIC and the Zoning Board of Appeals. He asked if CIC should address itself more to the City Code, particu- larly the Sign Code. He thinks there are areas for improvement. Mayor Keller indicated that the joint meeting between the Zoning Board and CIC might still be a good first step. Mr. Ohm responded that this could be done. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to refer this item to the Planning Commission and requested that CIC and the Zoning Board have a joint meeting to see if they can resolve any concerns prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. Ms. Miller stated that if the Planning Commission reviews this issue, she would also like to hear about conditional use permits and what differences there are with that process. She would like for them to take a look at the current situation and see if there is a perception that when parallel situations occur that parallel results could also occur. This is similar to what has been done with conditional use permits. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 9