The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-06-26 BOA MINUTESPRESENT Mrs.Gardner Mrs.Kelley Mr.Leffler Mr.Pfeifer Mr.Sanchez,Chairman Mr.Nakagawa,Staff Mr.Alexander,City Attorney Ms.Whitten,Acting Executive Secretary Ms.Holton, Recording Secretary BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 26,1991 7:00 P.M. ABSENT GUESTS Mrs.Blatterspiel Mr.Schaffer (verbal resignation) SYNOPSIS Agenda dated June 26,1991 accepted. No Meeting Minutes for approval. List in Planning Office ROLL CALL Five Board Members present with two members absent as listed. (Mr.Schaffer had tendered a verbal resignation). AGENDA Chairman Sanchez called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He asked for a motion to accept the agenda dated June 26,1991. Board Members Pfeifer/Leffler - M/S "Mr.Chairman,I move we accept the agenda dated June 26,1991." Motion passed 5-0-0 (with two members absent). OLD BUSINESS There was none. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES NEW BUSINESS JUNE 26,1991 PAGE 2 Chairman Sanchez asked for a staff briefing on the consideration of a revision of paragraph 9 of the Rules of Conduct to provide for a procedure for reconsidering decisions of the Board of the Adjustment. David Alexander.City Attorney,explained to the Board that: 1)subsequent to the Board's last meeting,discussions were held with an applicant's representatives which dealt with considerations for reconsideration of Board decisions. 2)it was noted that although the Board had reconsidered matters in the past,there was no formal procedure which had been agreed upon by the Board for that particular procedure. 3)the importance of agreeing upon a methodology was illustrated by a Scottsdale,Arizona,case in which the Arizona State Board of Appeals found that there can be reconsiderations by Boards of Adjustment that toll the thirty -day appeal period, but it must be an adopted procedure. 4)by tolling a thirty -day period,he meant that an aggrieved party can file a special action in Superior Court within thirty days after a Board decision. 5)if an aggrieved person misses that thirty -day deadline,a defendant may raise this fact as a reason to have the suit thrown out. 6)the Scottsdale decision stated that if a petition for reconsideration is filed and the Board has an accepted policy on reconsideration,then the date of the filing of the petition begins the "tolling"of the thirty -day period and insures that rights are not lost by a failure to file within thirty days of a Board decision. Mr.Pfeifer asked if this matter had been brought about by something that happened at the last Board meeting and could it be discussed? Chairman Sanchez interrupted to say that any discussion of an issue not on the agenda wouldn't be pertinent to the issue of the proposed revision to the Rules of Conduct. Mr.Alexander said regardless of speculation concerning what may happen,there needs to be an adopted procedure for reconsideration. Mrs.Gardner asked if a decision by the Board at this meeting would take effect immediately? Mr.Alexander said as it would be an adoption of a rule of procedure,it would go into effect immediately. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 26,1991 PAGE 3 Mr.Pfeifer asked if it was a procedure that other cities had adopted? Mr.Alexander answered that the most obvious answer was that Scottsdale,Arizona,had adopted it as they had a case law on the books regarding this matter.He said that the Board had relied upon Robert's Rules of Order which says "at the next regularly scheduled business day,a motion can be made to reconsider",but the problem is that Board meetings are on a thirty -day schedule and the appeal period would have run out during that time. Mr.Leffler asked if it wasn't true that "the clock would start up again"on the appeals process if a petitioner did come before the Board at the present time? Mr.Alexander said it was true that the filing of a petition within thirty days of a Board decision stopped the thirty day period for filing,and the Board's decision to reconsider starts another thirty day period.He also said that the Board could call a special meeting anytime within that period to hear the petitioner's case, but that the time for preparing and publishing the 15 -day public notice must be taken into account. Mrs.Gardner questioned the agenda reference to revising "paragraph 9"of the Rules of Procedure but the proposed motion for adoption was title "XI.Reconsideration"and asked which was correct? Sandy Whitten said it was an oversight and that the addition of paragraph XI was correct. Mr.Leffler said in order to clarify "immediate hearing"after a Board decision to reconsider,it means at the meeting at which the Board decided to reconsider. Mr.Alexander agreed with this clarification.He added in further clarifying what the adoption of this procedure would mean in the future,anyone could petition the Board for a reconsideration at any time within the thirty day period and without risking the loss of their appeal rights. Mr.Pfeifer asked a question regarding how many times a reconsideration could be filed for and granted a hearing by the Board. Mr.Alexander said it would be up to the Board to set a limit on how many times a case could be reconsidered.He stated that as it stands at this time,Robert's Rules of Order calls for one reconsideration per case and is the rule the Board has used in the past. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 26,1991 PAGE 4 A discussion took place on the ramifications of a special action by the Superior Court in these types of cases and typical costs associated with a favorable decision of the Superior Court. Mr.Alexander said that special action decisions are expeditious judgements affirming that you did it right or you did it wrong,but normally do not assess damages or costs other than lawyer fees and court costs.He additionally said that if a suit was brought for example,a wrongful cessation of business or other hardship,it would be decided as any other lawsuit against the city or its entities. Board members discussed the specific wording of the rule to be adopted. Chairman Sanchez asked if there were any further questions or information to be added before calling for a motion?As there were none,he asked for a motion. Mr.Alexander said in order to clarify for the record,it was the wish of the Board to insert "on a one-time basis"in the first paragraph after "board" as it appears in the fourth line between the word "board"and the word "a". Chairman Sanchez concurred with the clarification of the amendment. Mr.Pfeifer said the purpose of the amendment was to limit it to one request for reconsideration. MOTION Board Members Leffler/Gardner - M/S "I move we adopt Rule XI of the Board's Rules of Conduct to clearly provide for a procedure for reconsidering decisions of the Board of Adjustment to read as amended: "XI.Reconsideration A person aggrieved by a decision of the board,a taxpayer, officer or department of the mjnicipality affected by a board decision may at any time within thirty days after the board has rendered its decision,file with the board,on a one-time basis,a petition for reconsideration of the board decision. The filing of the petition for reconsideration shall toll the fime for taking appeal from the original board decision. The board shall act upon the petition at its next regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting called for such purpose providing proper notice required by A.R.S. Section 9-462.06.F. can be accomplished. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES VOTE ADJOURNMENT JUNE 26,1991 PAGE 5 Should the board decide to reconsider its original decision, a hearing shall be held immediately after such determination. Should the board decide not to reconsider its original decision,then such action shall constitute a decision from which the statutory appeal period (A.R.S.Section 9-462.06) shall commence." Motion was approved 5-0-0 by roll call vote. Chairman Sanchez asked about any staff reports. Sandy Whitten. Acting Executive Secretary,said she wished to remind the Board that election of officers will be on the August 12th agenda. Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion to reaffirm an August 12th meeting date. Board Members Gardner/Leffler -M/S "I move that we have an executive session at 6:30 p.m.,a work session at 6:45 p.m.,and a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.on August 12,1991." Motion passed 5-0-0 by roll call vote. Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion to adjourn. Board Members Leffler/Kelley - MIS "I move we adjourn." Motion was approved. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. 42erilgtitive Secretary Ken SanEhez,Chairman