Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Process Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff proposes administrative variances, lower voting threshold and new appeal route for Board of Adjustment
Summary
City staff proposed code changes on July 9 to permit limited administrative variances for existing single‑family properties, lower the BOA voting threshold to a simple majority, and route appeals to the City Commission as a quasi‑judicial review.
City development staff told the Board of Adjustment on July 9 that they will bring code amendments this fall to create an administrative variance procedure for limited changes, lower the board’s supermajority voting requirement to a simple majority for variances, and move the post-decision appeal from circuit court to the City Commission as a quasi‑judicial review.
Carlene Devanish of the Development Services Department presented the proposals and said they were requested by the City Commission after public comments and city research. Devanish described the administrative-variance concept as limited to existing single‑family residential principal and accessory structures and recommended a 25% or 3‑foot cap (whichever is less) for relief on yard setbacks and structure height; the proposal would allow the zoning administrator to grant modest relief administratively and permit applicants to appeal a denial to the Board of Adjustment. "The recommendation was to apply the administrative variance only to existing single family residential dwelling and accessory structures," Devanish said.
Devanish said the commission supported lowering the Board of Adjustment voting threshold from the current majority-plus-one (supermajority) to a simple majority because applicants found the higher threshold burdensome. She also said the commission supported moving appeals from circuit court to City Commission review as a quasi‑judicial hearing. Devanish told the board staff will forward an ordinance to Planning & Zoning and then to the City Commission, aiming for the code change to take effect in January 2026.
Board members provided detailed feedback during the presentation. Several board members voiced concern that appeals be handled by an impartial forum and suggested using the city’s code‑compliance magistrate instead of the City Commission so appeals would not return to the elected body. One board member urged a notice requirement when administrative variances are considered so neighbors can submit comments, saying, "I would strongly urge that there be a notice requirement because at least then, if I'm the neighbor ... I would want to be at least able to submit a letter." Another board member and an alternate suggested limiting successive resubmissions after a denial; the staff sought guidance on whether to shorten the current two‑year bar or to permit a fixed number of resubmissions within a time window.
Devanish said staff will draft the ordinance and present it to the Planning & Zoning Board and then to the City Commission for first and second reading; the timeline presented to the BOA targeted Planning & Zoning next month and City Commission readings in September and October, with an effective date in January 2026.
The proposals, if adopted, would reduce the number of cases that come before the Board of Adjustment by handling minor, clearly defined relief administratively while preserving a path to the board if the zoning administrator denies a request. The most contested points recorded in the meeting were whether appeals should be heard by the City Commission or by a magistrate and whether neighbors should receive notice of administrative variance requests.
