Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #5 Trainingpl� 0 40 lot i 44 0000 .6-7 tole IL -MOW GOP-- Quasi -Judicial vs Legislative Decisions Two types of decisions at local level Quasi-judicial- similar to a court proceeding; acting like a judge when making decisions * Legislative- making broad policy Both are equally important in how decision -makers evaluate and make decisions. They just have different requirements that needs to followed and considered Post -amendment (2010 -present) Not Subject to LLUPA Review Comprehensive plans (adoption or amendments) Comprehensive plan maps Moratoriums (issuance or lifting) Enforcement actions258 Annexations (annexations do not fall within LLUPA's judicial review provisions, but category B & C annexations are subject to IAPA review under a separate statute)259 Rezoning of large areas?260 Building permits 161 Design review approval or denial262 Legislative Subject to LLUPA Review Initial zoning following annexation Rezoning of specific parcels or sites pursuant to section 67-6511 Conditional rezoning pursuant to section 67-651 IA Application for subdivision Application for variance Application for conditional use permit (aka special use permit) "Other similar applications required or authorized" under LLUPA. Planned unit developments261 Quasi -Judicial vs Legislative Decisions Quasi -Judicial: Action to decide how a general rule or regulation applies to a particular person, property, or interest. • Because these actions impact some members of the community more than the whole community, due process is significantly greater than in legislative. Requires: Notice and opportunity to be heard ® Opportunity to be present and rebut evidence • Impartial decision makers • A record of the proceedings • Adequate findings and conclusions Legislative: Action taken by a governing body which guides or directs the public by enacting rules, regulations, policies, and/or procedures. • Result from broad public input • Challengeable typically on grounds of being unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. In Idaho, this usually happens when a member of a governing board has a direct personal interest in the outcome. Legislative Actions. 1. Has the input been broad? 2. Has the process been fair (and there is no conflict of interest)? 3. Has the process been public? 4. Have the established procedures been followed? 5. Has proper notice been given? Quasi -Judicial Actions. 1. Has the process been public (and there is no conflict of interest)? 2. Is the decision being made from information "on the record" (with no ex parte communications)? 3. Is the basis of the decision well reasoned and clear? 4. Has the governing body given the process due? 5. Is the decision clear, final and appealable? Things to remember for Quasi -Judicial - DUE PROCESS! • Ex -parte communications or fact finding must be disclosed at the meeting • Includes: • Speaking to member of the public about the application • Communicating with another decision -maker about the topic- cell, face-to-face, email, text, etc • Driving by a subject property to view it in context of the application • Process is critical • Follow public hearing resolution for order and type of testimony, including giving applicant opportunity to rebut • Need to be neutral • Sitting as a judge • Decisions need to be made based on the record • Staff reports provide great deal of facts • Ordinances, Comp Plan • Public testimony and input • Discussions at the open meeting and hearing • Decisions need to be based on the review criteria and be rational • Review criteria are given in code for quasi-judicial reviews (and sometimes for legislative reviews) I Quasi -Judicial Every decision -maker on a board could make a motion to take an action based on reasons that were different than the other decision makers and the motion, if approved by the majority, would be upheld if it was reasonable, rational, and based on facts, the review criteria, and the record. Quasi -Judicial- Best Practices • Make disclosures before the public hearing begins. It is okay to drive by the site- you need to disclose in the meeting when you drove by and what you saw Refrain from speaking to members of the public about projects that you know that have made application or that will make application. Refrain from speaking to other decision makers about a project that you know that have made application or that will make application until the open meeting. If you know something about an application and that info doesn't come up during the hearing and you know that it will affect the basis for your decision, you should disclose it before the public input period begins. s If you have questions, always CYA- Consult Your (the City's) Attorney Things to remember for Legislative Decisions Legislative decisions are about setting policy for the city or broad area, generally. r, Process must be followed: • Notices, Open Meeting Law, etc., as required by Idaho Code and City Code • You can: • Speak to members of the community without needing to make disclosures • Drive by a site without making disclosures • Do your own research without making disclosures • Come into the meeting without being impartial Best Practice: Because somethings like rezones lie in a fine area between quasi-judicial and legislative, it is generally recommended to abide by the best practices for quasi-judicial decision-making. Staff and the City Attorney can help educate you if you have questions to let you know how to best proceed for your reviews. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Required by Idaho Code 67-6519(5): 4$ Application approvals or denials must specify: The ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application The reasons for the approval or denial. Where facts are contested with regards to any standards for approval, the motions needs to be specific about why or why not burdens of proof were met. ® The actions, if any, that the applicant could take to obtain approval (if denied) MOVING FORWARD, EVERY DECISION MADE BY THE COMMISSION OR COUNCIL WILL BE DONE BY APPROVING A WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHICH ADDRESSES EACH OF THE ABOVE ELEMENT AND THE FACTS OF THE PETITION.