Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Administrator topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board debates appointing single zoning administrator to speed routine decisions
Summary
Board members and staff debated whether to authorize a single zoning administrator to handle routine land‑use rulings; staff said a ZA could act within 35 days and speed noncontroversial items, while members raised concerns about training, appeal rights and conflicts if the ZA later sat on appeals.
The Zoning Board met July 8 to consider whether to authorize a zoning administrator to decide routine land‑use matters.
A staff member outlined how an appointed zoning administrator (ZA) would work: the ZA would take initial action on eligible applications and has 35 days to issue a determination; if the ZA’s decision is appealed, the matter would go to the full zoning board and the appeal would be scheduled within roughly 30 days, with up to 90 days allowed to reach a final decision after a hearing is set. The staff member said the ZA role is meant to speed “cut‑and‑dry” items such as minor site-plan clarifications and simple denials where the five variance findings do not apply.
“Sometimes the fee would cover both postings, depending on how long the newspaper ads cost,” the staff member said, noting the current special‑permit application fee is $500 (down from $700 two years ago) and that the board might consider a modest increase to cover the cost of additional postings if appeals require re‑advertising.
Board members expressed a mix of support and caution. One member said appointing a ZA could ease backlog and help when the board struggles to reach a quorum, while others warned that the ZA’s duties should be spelled out in detail and that training is important. “I’m a little leery about that,” one board member said, expressing concern that an appointed ZA who later participates in an appeal could create a conflict of interest.
Staff told the board that most nearby towns use outside planners or stipend‑based administrators rather than current board members; the board discussed recruitment challenges and the difficulty of finding volunteers. Staff offered to consult the Planning Resource and Development Council and to reach out to planners in neighboring towns for sample language and practices.
The board did not adopt any new policy at the meeting. Members voted to continue the ZA discussion and to seek town‑counsel guidance and examples from regional planners before taking further action.
