City attorney Aaron led a training for Fenton's Board of Adjustment and the Board of Administrative Review at a regular meeting, walking members through their powers, procedural rules, standards for variances and limits on outside communication. "You are the only board that actually has the authority to modify or change the application of the code to someone's property," Aaron told members, stressing the board's quasi-judicial role.

The training explained why the boards matter: the Board of Adjustment can hear appeals of administrative interpretations and may grant variances that alter how the city code applies to a particular property. Aaron said the board's authority must be exercised "in the spirit and intent of the ordinance," and that decisions must be supported by "competent and substantial evidence." He warned that granting a variance without adequate evidence can lead to a court remand.

Aaron outlined two general variance types: use variances (called "unnecessary hardship" in the meeting), which are rare and require proof that the land cannot yield a reasonable return from any allowed use, and area/practical-difficulty variances, a more common request that depends on property-specific factors. He listed factors courts consider for practical difficulty, including how substantial the requested variation is, impacts on adjacent properties and whether reasonable alternatives exist. "Not every property is entitled to a pool," Aaron said, summarizing case law that courts have used to deny some requests.

Procedural rules covered included notice, recordkeeping and evidence. Aaron recommended a court reporter for contested hearings and explained that everything relied on by the board should be part of the written record: zoning and building codes, the application, the denial letter from the administrative officer, site plans, photos and any correspondence. He also reviewed notice windows mentioned in the session: the board must provide public notice for hearings, petition timelines for the administrative-review process (10 days to file a petition, as described in the meeting), and the circuit-court appeal window (30 days after a final decision). Aaron cautioned members to put facts on the record if extrarecord conversations occur, because reliance on outside information could lead to losing on judicial review.

On voting and quorums, Aaron said the board has five regular members (statutorily required) and a quorum is three, but stressed a substantive threshold: a concurring vote of four members is required to grant a variance or overturn an administrative denial. He recommended obtaining the applicant's consent to proceed when only four members are present, because that effectively requires a unanimous vote of those four.

The training stressed limits on closed or private discussions (ex parte communications) and ethical conflicts. Aaron said board members may consult city staff but must not rely on or act on undisclosed conversations with applicants or interested parties. He summarized statutory ethics rules specific to quasi-judicial bodies and warned members not to participate in matters that would provide them or their family a financial gain. "You are judges in a way," he said, and urged members to avoid appearances of bias or conflicts.

Aaron also described the Board of Administrative Review (chapter 160 in the meeting) as the in-house review process for other final city actions, noting petitions must be filed promptly, the board's hearing will be recorded and the board's recommendation goes back to the Board of Aldermen, which holds final authority on those matters. He said the administrative-review process is intended to allow contested cases to be heard in a formal record before any court action.

Members asked procedural questions during the presentation, including whether conversations with staff (Amy) are allowed (Aaron: yes, provided they do not rise to ex parte influence on a case) and about legal coverage for members; Aaron said the city covers court costs and that official immunity/insurance applies to official actions. The meeting concluded with a unanimous roll-call vote to adjourn.

The session combined legal standards, local practice and several illustrative court cases cited by Aaron to show how judges review board records. Aaron repeatedly emphasized documenting the factual record, explaining and supporting decisions on the public record, and avoiding undisclosed contacts that could undercut due process.