Board of Zoning Appeals reviews proposed bylaws changes on attendance, terms and conflicts of interest

At a meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, members reviewed proposed amendments to the board bylaws that address removal for absences, members’ term lengths and staggering, conflicts of interest and disclosure requirements, and training expectations.

The review matters because the bylaws set governance expectations for the five-member board, including when the body may recommend removal of a member to the mayor, how terms are staggered if the board is reconstituted, and which ethics rules apply when members have personal or financial interests in cases before the board.

Board members first approved routine items: the meeting agenda and minutes for March 20 and April 17 were moved, seconded and approved by voice vote. The substantive discussion that followed was taken up as old business: the draft bylaw text in front of members was discussed line by line.

Members debated whether an absence threshold in section 2.6 should include a time frame. The draft language says that “when a member is absent for more than 2 scheduled meetings with or without providing proper notice, we may make a recommendation to the board or the to the mayor to remove him.” Board members asked whether that count should be limited to absences within a calendar year or within a member’s term; some argued a one-year or six-month window could reduce misuse of the provision, while others said leaving it general gives the board flexibility. The draft was clarified to state that the board “may” recommend removal rather than requiring removal.

Members discussed term lengths and staggering. The draft currently provides that the mayor may serve and that remaining members serve three-year terms. Participants noted a council member appointed to the board might have a different election cycle and suggested aligning any council-member appointment to that council member’s term. The group discussed standard staggering practice if the board is ever reset: one seat for one year, two seats for two years and two seats for three years so institutional knowledge is retained.

The draft’s conflict-of-interest and disclosure sections prompted extended discussion. Board members noted two sources govern conduct: Robert’s Rules of Order (procedural guidance) and the municipal code’s Title 1 ethics provisions. Members said the draft’s conflict section reproduces language from Robert’s Rules that advises a member should not vote when they have a direct personal interest, but also cites the Robert’s Rules example language that “no member can be compelled to refrain from voting.” Members emphasized that the municipal code’s ethics requirements (Title 1) also apply and that the draft separates voting and nonvoting disclosures.

Members also raised the topic of training hours. The draft did not set a specific number of hours; members recommended language stating board members are required to have annual training in compliance with the Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) without fixing a specific hour requirement in the bylaws so the board remains consistent with state changes.

For next steps, the board agreed to send the draft, with the discussed edits, to staff counsel (referred to in the meeting as “Ginger”) for legal review, and to circulate the revised draft to members ahead of the next meeting for formal adoption. Members also discussed whether, once adopted, the bylaws should be incorporated by reference in the zoning ordinance; staff (Rick) said he would double-check the current ordinance references and report back.

The meeting concluded after members approved adjournment.