Creve Coeur Board of Adjustment holds member training on variances, recordkeeping and meeting conduct

Creve Coeur — City staff led a training session for the Creve Coeur Board of Adjustment focused on the legal standard for variances, hearing procedure and recordkeeping, and urged members to make clear, evidence‑based findings when voting.

Director of Community Development Jason Jagie and City Attorney Carl told the board that zoning rules flow from the city’s comprehensive plan and that the legal standard to grant a variance is a showing of hardship or practical difficulty rather than a preference for a different outcome. Carl summarized the court posture in a recent appeal, saying the Nafar case will provide additional guidance on how courts review board decisions.

“There’s a range of reasonableness that people can agree to disagree,” Carl said while explaining how decisions are reviewed on the record. He warned that the circuit court looks only at the evidence presented at the hearing and urged members to avoid ex parte contacts and to note any drive‑by inspections on the record.

City Planner Bethany Moore described the staff report process: reports go point‑by‑point through ordinance criteria, cite missing facts and are intended to help the board evaluate whether the criteria are met. Moore said most applicants are unrepresented and that staff usually meets with applicants in person to explain hardship criteria; she estimated the typical lead time from initial conversation to a hearing is “about a month to two months.”

Staff and counsel recommended procedural practices to strengthen the record: have the chair read an introductory script for applicants, require motions before deliberation, discuss amendments before returning to the main motion, and have members state specific reasons when voting no so staff can draft clear written findings of fact. Carl added, “A variance is only good for a year unless they exercise it,” noting the effect of lapsed variances.

The training also covered ethical obligations and recusal: Carl said Missouri law focuses on financial conflicts that require recusal but acknowledged that personal conflicts or perceived bias may prompt a member to step aside to avoid a later legal challenge. He cited the Missouri Sunshine Law in advising members to avoid off‑record deliberations.

The session was conversational and framed as a refresher before the board resumes hearing applications. Staff said they plan to supply the proposed chair script and other guidance to standardize how hearings begin and to help applicants understand the process.

The board concluded the training portion and moved on to routine business.