Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Member reduction proposal for board of adjustment tabled after objections
Summary
Committee discussed lowering the board of adjustment from five to three members; staff reported applicant interest, but committee member Phil Mclofflin strongly opposed the reduction and the committee deferred any change.
Committee members discussed a proposal to reduce the board of adjustment from five to three members but took no action on April 21.
Dusty said the reduction proposal had been on the prior month’s agenda and that since then two applicants had submitted applications on the county website with a third person expressing interest but not completing an application. Dusty said he had been waiting for the third application to bring three candidates for review.
Committee member Phil Mclofflin expressed firm opposition to reducing the board’s size, saying, "I just wanted to express my thoughts about the go idea of going to three. I think that is just not good at all. At all." He argued a larger panel is more appropriate given the board’s authority and that reducing membership to three would concentrate decision‑making.
Given the current applicant pool, the committee decided there was no need to change membership levels at this meeting and left the board size unchanged.
Why it matters: The board of adjustment reviews appeals and decisions that can affect land‑use outcomes; the committee’s choice to retain the current size preserves a broader membership for those quasi‑judicial functions.
