HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #3 Training Materials9W
,14
rI
I
1
Review of decision-making
framework
zivza:
OF
Topics Covered:
1. Quasi-judicial vs Legislative decisions
2. Finds of Fact
3. Who makes the decisions for applications?
4. Where do appeals go?
5. What are the review criteria/standards for most common applications?
6. Resources of Information
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
3
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 permits261
Design review approval or demal262
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 developments263
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.
I
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)
7
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
approved by the majority, would be upheld if it was reasonable,
on facts, the review criteria, and the record.
the motion, if
rational, and based
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.
If you have questions, always CYA- Consult Your (the City's) Attorney
(le al@cityofchubbuck.us)
Things to remember for Legislative Decisions
• Legislative decisions are about setting policy for the city or broad area, generally.
• 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):
• 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)
Where do applications go?
• Preliminary Plat
• LUDC for recommendation; Council for final decision
• Final Plat
• Council for final decision
• Conditional Use Permit
• LUDC for final decision; can be appealed to City Council
• Variance
• LUDC for final decision; can be appealed to City Council
• Zoning/Initial Zoning
• LUDC for recommendation; Council for final decision
• Annexation
• Council for final decision
12
Appeals/Requests for Reconsideration
• Staff decisions (18.28.070)
• Affected person can appeal to LUDO, then can be appealed to City Council
• LUDC decisions (18.28.080)
• Affected person can appeal to City Council
• City Council decisions (18.28.090)
Affected person can request reconsideration
Affected Person: One having a bona fide interest in real property which may be adversely
affected an approval, denial, or failure to act on an application.
13
Pre -plat review criteria (17.12.100.B):
The preliminary plat shall be reviewed for compliance with applicable ordinance provisions subject to the
following review criteria:
1. The subdivision proposal complies with applicable provisions of this title.
2. The subdivision proposal complies in principle with all applicable City design standards and
development regulations.
3. The subdivision proposal complies with all applicable zoning requirements of the underlying
zoning district, applicable overlays, and other applicable development standards.
4. All public facilities including streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, water, sewer, fire protection, and
sanitation services can be provided to the newly created lots and accommodate future extension to
adjacent land. The use of a "control strip" intended to control or prevent the future extension of public
facilities or development of adjacent land is prohibited
5. *** Traffic study — depending on projected traffic ***
Final plat review criteria (17.12.220/230):
The final plat shall be in substantial conformance to the approved preliminary plat.
A. Unless changes made directly reflect specific conditions or approvals of the City Council, a final plat fails substantial
conformity if any of the following occur:
1. The number of lots has increased or a significant change in the configuration of lots.
2. Street alignment has changed significantly.
3. Additional streets are proposed.
4. A significant change, more than ten percent (10%), in the size or location of open space whether public or private.
5. Other proposed changes which may have affected the reviewed preliminary plat.
At its regular meeting, the City Council shall approve the final plat if the final plat and supporting documents substantially conform to the preliminary
platpreviously ap roved. If the final plat is not approved by the Council, the developer may undertake either of the alternatives specified in
subsection 1 y1 21 B of this chapter. The Council shall enter the reasons for rejecting the final plat, in the minutes of its meeting.
Conditional Use Permit review criteria (18.28.020)
Standards for Approving a CUP: A CUP may only be approved if LUDC makes affirmative findings of fact on each of the
following standards:
a. The proposed use is conditionally permitted in the subject zoning district and complies with all of the
applicable provisions of city code unless modified through the conditional use permit process.
b. The proposed use is generally not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
c. The proposed use is compatible with other existing and permitted uses in the general vicinity.
d. The proposed use is harmonious in scale, mass, coverage, density, and intensity with all adjacent permitted
land uses.
e. The proposed use would not place an undue burden on transportation, police, fire and EMS protection,
water/sewer, schools, and other public facilities or agencies, in the vicinity.
f. The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect otherproperties or the
environment in the vicinity to a materially greater extent than would uses permitted outright by this Code.
'Conditions can be added to make project meet the standards for approving- See 18.28.020.6
Variance review criteria (18.28.030):
A variance may be only approved if LUDC makes affirmative written findings of fact on each of the following standards:
a. The applicant has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the strict terms of the ordinance from which a
variance is requested.
b. Granting of the variance is not a right or special privilege.
c. Granting of the variance is due to an undue hardship as related to the characteristics of the land, and the
applicant has shown that absent a variance, they would be deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in
the identical zoning district under the terms of the title.
d. Granting of the variance is the result of an undue hardship caused by the characteristics of the site and the
creation of the hardship did not result from actions of the applicant, or the current, or a prior landowner, or any of their
agents. In no event shall any variance be granted merely because compliance would diminish the financial return from
use of the land in question or because it would reduce the market value of lands or because compliance with code
would be financially costly.
e. Granting of the variance does not demonstrably adversely affect adjacent/nearby property.
f. Granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Zone Change
(18.28.050):
Map Amendment:
(title map amendment) criteria
(1) The proposed map amendment would be in the community's best interest;
(2) The list of uses permitted by the land use ordinance would blend with surrounding land uses
and the uses permitted in the proposed zoning district would be harmonious in terms of their scale, mass,
coverage, density, and intensity with adjacent -land uses.
(3) The sub'ect site is suitable for the type and intensity of land uses permitted under the
proposed zoning dis rict.
(4) The subject site would be adequately served by transportation routes,, police, fire and EMS
protection water/sewer, schools, and other public facilities and services, or agencies, to serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare under the proposed zoning district; and
(5) The proposed map amendment is generally not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and
policies'of the adopted Com rehensive Plan. LUDC and Council shall have discretion in interpreting
exact boundary locations of �he future land use map designations when considering map amendment
requests.
Annexation criteria (18.28.050):
Annexation may be approved by the City Council if affirmative written findings of fact are made on
each of the following standards:
a. The land is contiguous or adjacent to the City boundary.
b. All portions of highways, streets, or roadways lying wholly or partially within an area to be
annexed shall be included within the area requested for annexation unless expressly agreed
between the city and the county.
c. The annexation meets the requirements for its Annexation Classification under Idaho
Code.
.... Continued on next slide
Annexation criteria 118.28.050):
Annexation of the land is in the best interest of the City. Suggested considerations to evaluate for this criteria
include:
(1) Revenue generated by property taxes will exceed longterm costs associated with maintenance and
provision of services and facilities.
(2) The advantages both to the City and to the area outweigh the disadvantages.
(3) If previously developed, the area has the opportunity to redeveloped or to develop at higher
intensity.
(4) If expenses required to bring the properties to city standards exceed anticipated property tax
income, the residents and/or Council agree to form a local improvement district.
(5) Annexation is equitable and fair to existing residents; and
(6) Annexation would address a public health concern.
e. The land can be served currently, or within a reasonable time, by essential urban services.
• f. A zoning district will be assigned via ordinance at the same time, or immediately following, the
annexation approval.
Resources:
City staff
City Attorney
• Idaho Land Use Handbook by Givens Pursley LLP:
https://www.givenspursley.com/assets/publications/handbooks/handbook-landuse.pdf
Idaho Code- Local Land Use Planning Act: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title67/t67ch65/
Chubbuck City Code: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chubbuckid/latest/overview
Idaho Open Meeting Law: https:Hlegislature.idaho.qov/statutesrules/idstat/title74/t74ch2/
Attorney General's Idaho Open Meeting Law Manual:
https://www.ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/OpenMeeting.pdf
21