Architectural Review Board reviews variance process, approves bylaws change to lower approval threshold

The Montgomery City Architectural Review Board on Oct. 12 reviewed a tutorial on variance standards and approved revisions to its bylaws to allow a simple majority to carry votes when a quorum is present.

Board members received a brief presentation on variance definitions and application requirements. Warren, a staff member, summarized that a variance is permission to depart from the development code where unique physical circumstances on a parcel create an unnecessary hardship under the zoning ordinance, and noted the four applicant questions included on the variance form: (1) whether special conditions peculiar to the property exist, (2) whether literal enforcement would deprive rights enjoyed by other properties, (3) whether those conditions are not the applicant’s own doing, and (4) whether granting the variance would not confer a special privilege on others.

The tutorial pointed members to the variance application form and to the code language that requires findings that a variance would not be contrary to the public interest and that enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship. Warren said the board should look for a physical constraint that prevents reasonable use under a strict reading of the code.

Separately, the board considered updated bylaws that incorporate the code change on variances and amend voting procedures. Under the revisions approved by the board, a meeting still requires a quorum of five members to convene, but an application may pass with a simple majority of those present rather than requiring all five affirmative votes. The board’s staff member explained the change is intended to reduce applicants’ need to defer due to absent members.

Board Chair Elizabeth Brown framed the amendment as consistent with similar changes on other municipal boards and said it would ease scheduling for applicants. No formal legal citations beyond the municipal code excerpts on variances were offered in the meeting. Members voted to approve the bylaws as presented; vote counts were not recorded in the transcript.

The board also discussed procedure questions raised by members about order of operations when hearing Certificates of Appropriateness and associated variance requests. Warren said the typical order is to hear the COA first and the variance second but noted the board may take them in either order if members choose.