Morgan Township’s Board of Zoning Appeals on Aug. 14 spent the latter portion of its meeting reviewing procedures and training needs for the board, and agreed to update its handbook to clarify site-visit rules, packet submission and meeting procedure.
Zoning Administrator Dale Marshall asked board members to identify problem areas in the current zoning resolution and handbook and to propose topics for training. The board discussed whether site visits should be conducted by individual members or by a group, the notice that must be given to property owners when a site visit occurs, and what inspectors and board members may do while on-site (visual inspection, measurements, and the limits on physical intervention).
Board members said they wanted clear written rules on site visits, including whether the applicant must be notified and given the opportunity to be present. “We could put in only what I feel what I find out and finally get an answer to Right. As to whether you go out by yourselves or you go out as a group,” Marshall said while summarizing options for formalizing the process.
Members also agreed to standardize packet handling and standing rules for who may submit materials for the record; Marshall said the handbook will state that packets will be accepted only from parties with standing (property owners or residents within the affected area) or from parties represented by legal counsel. The board discussed using the township website and social media to post notices; members asked Marshall to confirm what constitutes legally sufficient public notification under Ohio law.
The board accepted trustees’ financial support for two township email accounts and arrangements with the Ohio Township Association for webinar access. Marshall said the trustees had paid for OTA membership and that the township had created two mailboxes (zoningcom@morgantownship.org and zoningbza@morgantownship.org) for BZA communications. Members asked that Marshall circulate webinar and handbook drafts by email and reconvene to finalize the handbook revisions; he proposed a follow-up meeting by the end of September or in late September to combine webinar review with handbook edits.
Discussion (not decision): Board members raised concerns about conflicting past practice on evidence gathering, the need to avoid “fruit of the poisonous tree” for prior off-record material, and the need to limit social-media comment sections on public posts. Members asked for clearer recusal rules and guidance on degrees of relationship that trigger recusal. Marshall said he would consult legal guidance where needed and invite outside counsel or an OTA instructor to a future meeting.
Decision (direction): The board directed Marshall to draft handbook language on site visits, packet acceptance, meeting procedure and notifications; to circulate materials and suggested webinar viewing dates; and to schedule a follow-up workshop in late September to finalize revisions.
Ending: Marshall will email proposed handbook text and webinar links to members and coordinate a September follow-up meeting to finish the handbook updates.