Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA training stresses strict "unnecessary hardship" test, precise findings of fact
Summary
Attorney Mr. Taylor trained the Board of Zoning Appeals on March 4, urging members to make fact-based findings that explain the "because" for denials or approvals; he emphasized that the Beaver Gravel case narrows the use-variance standard and reviewed recusal, RLUIPA and public-records obligations.
Attorney and trainer Mr. Taylor led the Board of Zoning Appeals through a detailed training session on March 4 focused on crafting findings of fact and applying the legal standards for variances and special exceptions.
Mr. Taylor emphasized that findings must do more than repeat statutory criteria: they should explain the board’s reasoning by completing the sentence that follows "because," which gives an appellate court a clear record of the board’s basis for denial or approval. "The why or because is really good," he said.
He spent substantial time on use variances and the narrow "unnecessary hardship" standard, citing a recent Beaver Gravel case from Noblesville that, he said, demonstrates how courts reject justifications that do not directly address whether the property can be put to a conforming use or whether the owner can make a reasonable return in a permitted use. "Economic loss or higher profit from another use is not enough," Mr. Taylor said.
Mr. Taylor also reviewed special exceptions, which the transcript shows the town’s ordinance lists in many categories, and told members to consult the comprehensive plan and consider impacts to neighbors when those cases arise. He advised the board to ask factor-focused questions and avoid "curiosity" questions unrelated to the statutory factors (for example, asking what food a restaurant will serve).
The training covered board ethics and procedure: members must recuse for direct financial interests; friendship alone is not automatic disqualification but prior statements made before hearing evidence can create grounds for appeal. He reminded members that religious uses are protected under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and that staff and members must treat religious entities the same as other institutional applicants.
Administrative duties were also highlighted: documents created for BCA business are public records and must be preserved (Mr. Taylor noted a three-year retention obligation), and the Open Door law prohibits a majority of the body from meeting privately to decide business. He cited case examples, including Monroe County v. Bedford recycling and other local precedents, to illustrate pitfalls on evidence and procedural requirements.
Board members asked clarifying questions about practical-difficulty standards versus unnecessary hardship and about when attendance at other public meetings could constitute a quorum for BCA purposes. Mr. Taylor urged precision, adherence to the ordinance factors, and careful wording of motions and conditions.
The training concluded without formal votes; Mr. Taylor said he would take questions afterward and thanked members for their attention.
