Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Procedure Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lago Vista board gets training on variances, Open Meetings and meeting procedure
Summary
City attorney Brad reviewed statutory standards for zoning variances, evidence and notice requirements, Open Meetings rules and Rosenberg’s Rules for orderly meetings at a Board of Adjustment workshop session.
City attorney Brad briefed the Lago Vista Board of Adjustment on the legal standards the board must follow when hearing variance requests, the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) and basic procedural rules.
Brad told the panel the board’s authority is derived from state law and the city’s ordinances: “The duties of a board of adjustment are set forth in your code of ordinances and in, state law,” he said. He cited Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code and court decisions governing variances.
The training stressed why careful findings and recordkeeping matter. Brad explained that an applicant bears the burden to prove “unnecessary hardship” and described examples courts accept and reject: pure financial harm alone is not usually a legal basis for a variance; steep topography or unusual lot shapes can be. He said the board must “articulate objective legal grounds” if it grants or denies a variance, because courts review decisions under a substantial-evidence standard.
Brad summarized specific points board members should keep in mind when reviewing variance applications: the board may consider whether compliance would cost more than 50% of appraised value, whether compliance would remove 25% or more of the developable area, or whether compliance would create conflicts with other codes. He also cautioned against granting relief for self-imposed hardships and noted that granting a variance in one case does not legally bind the board to grant future variances unless the circumstances are materially identical.
Brad reviewed Open Meetings requirements and common pitfalls. He reminded members that discussion of public business among a quorum outside a posted meeting can create an unlawful “walking quorum” and that officials who use personal devices for public business may temporarily become custodians of public records subject to disclosure. He urged members to avoid serial one-on-one communications that effectively constitute board deliberations outside public view.
On procedure, Brad recommended consulting Rosenberg’s Rules (a simplified parliamentary guide often used by Texas public bodies) and the city’s rules of procedure to keep motions clear for the minutes and any later legal review. He also recommended that when the board retreats to executive session for legal advice it should, when it returns to open session, articulate public findings for the record rather than handling policy questions behind closed doors.
Board members asked several clarifying questions about hardship standards, height exceptions and the difference between variances and other exceptions. Brad said the legal standard for all zoning variances is the same regardless of whether the request involves height, setback or lot-area issues: the applicant must demonstrate unnecessary hardship under statutory and case-law criteria.
The city manager and board agreed to circulate the materials Brad mentioned and to have periodic refresher training.
