Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bylaws And Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney briefs ZBA on bylaws, voting threshold, variances and decision deadlines
Summary
City attorney Bradley Moore led a training on draft bylaws and procedure, advising the Zoning Board to clarify voting rules (majority of membership vs. majority present), prepare draft findings, and harmonize timeline language to reduce appellate risk.
Bradley Moore, the board’s legal adviser, led an extended training after the minutes discussion on June 1, urging clearer bylaws and ordinance language to prevent confusion about vote thresholds and to strengthen written decisions on variances.
Moore recommended that the board avoid restating statutory or ordinance criteria in bylaws and instead use bylaws to "fill in the gaps" where local practice needs clarification. He recommended making variance sections generic but using the ordinance criteria as the checklist for decision-making.
On the key question that spurred the meeting, Moore told the board that the ordinance language requiring a majority of the full membership to reverse a code-enforcement decision means an affirmative two‑member vote would be insufficient. As he summarized, "A 2 to 1 vote to reverse an order ... means it fails." He said the city could choose to change the ordinance to specify a majority of members present, and cited guidance from the Maine Municipal Association showing that local ordinance language can adopt a majority‑present rule to reduce confusion.
Moore also urged the board to vote separately on each statutory criterion for variances and to prepare draft findings of fact in advance. "I think you wanna take that as a checklist and go down each of them," he said, recommending checklists and template findings to speed decision-writing and to ensure written decisions will withstand appellate review. He noted the board should issue written decisions promptly after a final vote; he referenced a seven‑day expectation for issuing a formal decision in routine cases.
Other points Moore raised included protocols for delegating routine secretary duties to city staff while preserving the statutory board‑member role, the interaction of shoreland-zone state requirements (DEP notice and review) with local bylaws, and the suggestion that the board harmonize inconsistent timing language (for example, "30 days" vs. "one month") across its ordinances.
Moore said he would revise draft bylaw language and circulate samples (including material from the Maine Municipal Association) to the board ahead of the next meeting. Board members said they would review the drafts and bring specific sections back for discussion and recommendation to the planning board and city council if ordinance changes are needed.
The training closed with procedural recommendations the board can implement to reduce the risk of unclear votes and remands on appeal: adopt clear voting language, use checklists for variance criteria with separate votes, draft findings templates ahead of hearings and provide timely written decisions.
