Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-26 BZA Minutes/ Town of Pulaski Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Municipal Building, Council Chambers January 7, 2026 Zoning Administrator, Nathan Smythers called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and asked for a roll call. Mr. Cox- Aye Ms. Saunders- Absent Mr. White- Aye Mr. Talbert- Absent Mr. McAfee- Aye Review and Approval of Minutes May 9, 2024 Minutes There were not enough voting members present to adopt the minutes. Discussions Training/Educational Session- Andrew McBride Mr. McBride introduced himself, explaining that he works for Farthing Legal, the law firm that serves as the town attorney for Pulaski. He stated that he was asked to speak to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) because several members are new and the board has not been very active recently. The purpose of his presentation was to provide foundational education on what the BZA is and what its functions are. Mr. McBride began by explaining what the Board of Zoning Appeals is, noting that its name accurately reflects its role. It is a board composed of three to seven members, depending on the locality; Pulaski’s BZA consists of five members. The board deals with zoning, which is the process by which a community, through its elected officials, regulates land use. The BZA also handles appeals, which occur when a zoning decision made by town staff is challenged by someone who believes the decision was incorrect. He noted that there are additional responsibilities of the BZA that he will address later. Mr. McBride explained that Pulaski’s BZA has five members and that the town has recently achieved a full complement of members, which had not been the case for some time. While there are positions for two alternates, there are currently none appointed. Members serve five-year terms and may be reappointed if both the town and the member wish for them to continue. Appointments are formally made by the Circuit Court, typically based on recommendations submitted by the town, which the court generally follows. The board has three officers: a chair, a vice chair, and a secretary. Mr. McBride noted that officer elections would normally occur with the full board present and may be deferred to a future meeting. He outlined the responsibilities of each role: the chair presides over meetings and rules on procedural matters; the vice chair assumes those duties when the chair is absent; and the secretary is responsible for minutes, correspondence, and advertisements. Unlike the chair and vice chair, the secretary does not have to be a board member, and under the BZA bylaws, these duties may be delegated to the assistant to the town executive, with staff support available. Officers are elected annually and may continue serving in the same roles from year to year. Mr. McBride explained that one of the BZA’s primary functions is hearing appeals, which he will discuss in detail. In addition, the board has authority to grant variances, consider special exceptions, and interpret the zoning ordinance. He noted that these functions vary in complexity and that he will elaborate on each. Appeals arise when the town makes a zoning-related decision, usually through the zoning administrator, and a citizen disagrees. A common example is when a property owner receives a notice stating they are in violation of the zoning code. If the property owner disputes the determination, they may appeal to the BZA. The notice informs the recipient that they have 30 days to file an appeal. Once an appeal is filed, state law establishes a 90-day period in which the BZA should render a decision. Within that timeframe, the board must hold a hearing at a reasonable time. According to the BZA bylaws, the board should issue its decision within 30 days after the hearing. Mr. McBride outlined the structure of an appeals hearing. The zoning administrator presents first, explaining the town’s action and the legal basis for it. The appellant then presents their case, arguing why the town’s decision was incorrect. The statute requires that the appellant be given equal time to that provided to the zoning administrator. The BZA bylaws also provide for a public comment period, typically following the appellant’s presentation, and the appellant is generally allowed a rebuttal at the end. This sequence forms the standard flow of an appeals hearing. In response to questions, Mr. McBride explained that the BZA may consult with legal counsel, including the town attorney. However, there are statutory restrictions on communications during a pending appeal. Board members are prohibited from discussing the facts or law of an appeal with the applicant, their representatives, or town staff while the appeal is pending. Administrative communications, such as scheduling, are allowed. If improper communication occurs, it must be disclosed to the full board and all parties. The statute explicitly permits consultation with legal staff, allowing privileged attorney-client communications. The zoning administrator’s decision is presumed to be correct under state law. The burden rests with the appellant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the decision was incorrect. This standard requires only that the appellant’s argument be more convincing than the town’s, even by a small margin. The board’s task is to determine whether the town’s decision was legally correct based on applicable laws and ordinances. The BZA may affirm, reverse, or, in limited cases, modify the town’s decision. To reverse a decision, a majority of the entire board, not just those present, must concur. For Pulaski’s five-member board, this means at least three affirmative votes, even if only three members are present, resulting in situations where a two-to-one vote would still fail to overturn the town’s decision. Mr. McBride transitioned to discussing variances and special exceptions. The BZA is authorized to hear requests for both, although he noted that the authority over special exceptions in Pulaski may be unclear and somewhat complicated, so he does not cover that topic in detail. Variances, however, clearly fall within the BZA’s authority and are among the most common matters the board will consider. He noted that the last case heard by the board, approximately 19 to 20 months earlier, involved a variance. Variance requests typically relate to the size, placement, or arrangement of property or structures. A key feature of variances and special exceptions is that, if granted, the BZA may impose conditions on them. Mr. McBride continued by explaining that when the BZA grants a variance or special exception, it may impose conditions to ensure compliance. One such condition can be requiring the applicant to secure a bond. This bond serves as a financial guarantee that the applicant will comply with the conditions imposed by the board, with a potential financial penalty if they fail to do so. He further defined a variance as a request to depart from zoning rules related to the size, shape, or area of a lot, or the size, height, bulk, or location of a building or structure. To illustrate, he gave an example where the zoning ordinance requires a 10,000-square-foot lot to build a house, but a corner lot in a subdivision contains only 9,500 square feet. Under a literal reading of the code, construction would not be allowed, but the property owner could seek a variance, arguing that the house would fit the neighborhood, cause no harm, and allow reasonable economic use of the land. Another common example involves building setbacks. An owner may have a lot that technically meets size requirements, but steep terrain in part of the property makes it impossible to build while also meeting a 30-foot setback from the road. In such a case, the owner might request a variance to reduce the setback to 25 or 20 feet so a house can be constructed. These types of practical difficulties are typical grounds for variance requests. Mr. McBride explained that while the statute governing variances is lengthy and detailed, there are two key considerations. First, a variance may be appropriate if strict application of the zoning ordinance would unreasonably restrict the use of a parcel, such as rendering it effectively unusable or without practical value. Second, the need for a variance must be unique to the property and not generally shared by neighboring properties. If many properties face the same issue, the proper solution would be a zoning amendment rather than granting multiple variances. He noted that the BZA also has the authority to interpret the zoning map, though he expects this power to be used infrequently. This authority allows the board to resolve questions about where a zoning boundary line falls on a particular property. However, this does not include the power to rezone property or make major changes, only to clarify or interpret existing boundaries. Mr. McBride explained that nearly all BZA actions involving appeals, variances, or similar requests require public notice. This includes advertising the hearing twice in a newspaper within a specific time window before the meeting. Additionally, neighboring landowners must be notified by mail, including those adjacent to or across the street from the subject property. Under the BZA’s bylaws, the applicant is responsible for covering these notification costs, and town staff can assist in ensuring the requirements are properly met. He concluded his presentation by explaining that BZA decisions themselves may be appealed. Any appeal of a BZA decision must be filed within 30 days and is taken to the Pulaski County Circuit Court. The BZA is not a party to the appeal, but it has responsibilities to provide the court with its record, including documents and minutes, through what is known as a “return.” The court then handles the matter from that point forward. After finishing his presentation, Mr. McBride invited questions. Mr. Cox raised concerns based on prior training with the Architectural Review Board, particularly about avoiding informal discussions, group emails, or social conversations that could be considered meetings without public notice. Mr. McBride confirmed that similar open-meetings principles apply to the BZA. Meetings must generally be public, though there are limited circumstances for closed sessions, such as consulting with legal counsel. He explained that casual social interactions are permissible as long as zoning or appeal-related matters are not discussed. However, once board members begin discussing board business, especially with a quorum or through group emails, it may legally constitute a meeting requiring notice and advertisement. Two members may speak privately, but adding a third member turns the discussion into a meeting. He cautions against group emails discussing substantive matters. Mr. McAfee thanked Mr. McBride for the presentation, noting that it would have been helpful in earlier years. He confirmed that copies of the presentation are available for members to take with them. Informal discussion followed regarding board tenure and membership, identifying other members who were not present. Mr. White asked about receiving materials in advance of hearings. Scot Farthing explained that members will be provided with relevant documents ahead of time, including the zoning administrator’s decision letter, the landowner’s appeal, and access to the zoning ordinance. These materials will be shared with all parties to ensure fairness. Mr. Cox requested that the latest version of the zoning ordinance be emailed to them so they can review it in advance. Mr. Farthing emphasized that while members can prepare by reviewing the documents, public hearings are often difficult to anticipate because they may include emotional testimony from neighboring residents, who typically attend to voice opposition rather than support. The chair is responsible for managing public comment by setting time limits, maintaining order, and avoiding back-and-forth debate. Public comment is for listening only; board members are not required to respond. It is noted that after public comment, the applicant or landowner has the opportunity to rebut comments made. While emotional testimony can be challenging, it can also provide valuable context about conditions on the ground and help the board better understand how a proposal affects the surrounding area. The discussion continued with a question about whether BZA members may independently view properties involved in upcoming hearings. It is stated that there is nothing in the statute that prohibits board members from driving by or otherwise viewing a property on their own. As individual members of the board, they are free to observe properties within the town, and doing so can help the understand the physical context of a case. For example, if a hearing concerns a specific address, members may find it useful to see the neighborhood and surrounding conditions firsthand to better understand the issues involved. A question by Mr. White was raised about situations in which a BZA decision might affect adjacent county-zoned property. It is noted that, as part of the public notice requirements, letters are sent to adjoining property owners. There may also be special notice requirements when a property is located on or near a jurisdictional boundary, such as within a certain distance of a neighboring locality. While the exact statutory requirements are not confirmed during the meeting, it is acknowledged that neighboring jurisdictions may need to be notified as a courtesy or legal requirement in such cases. The discussion also touched on potential conflict-of-interest issues when a board member is employed by the county zoning department. In those circumstances, the situation would need to be evaluated carefully to determine whether a conflict exists and how it should be handled. Generally, however, the BZA’s authority extends only to property within the town’s jurisdiction, and any impact on the county typically arises because of proximity to the boundary rather than direct regulatory authority. Election of Officers Election of officers would take place at the next meeting. Reminder of Next Meeting and Public Hearing January 28th or 29th at 6:00 p.m. pending coordination with the landowner’s attorney to accommodate schedules. With no further business, Mr. Smythers adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.