The Independence City Council is considering establishing an independent board of adjustment for the city, per a proposed ordinance from councilmember Greg Steffen.
“Right now we have one person on the county centralized board of adjustment,” Steffen said at the city council meeting on Monday, “and this way, if we go back to having our own, we’ll have five residents of Independence on the board of adjustments to make the decisions for the city, instead of multiple people from all over the county and one of our people. And while I may not agree with the decisions they make, I think I would feel better knowing it’s our people making decisions for our people.”
Boards of adjustment are responsible for hearing requests from local residents and businesses about changing their properties in a way that doesn’t conform to zoning regulations. For example, if a business wants to install a sign that’s slightly larger than what’s currently allowed, they can make a request to a board of adjustment, who will hear their case and make a decision.
Currently, Independence, Fairview, Ludlow, Elsmere, Bromley, Ryland Heights, Kenton Vale and the unincorporated county use a joint board of adjustment through Kenton County Planning and Development Services. The other cities in Kenton County have their own boards. Independence’s representative on the joint board is Steven Sorg; the city had its own board before eventually switching to the joint board in 2014.
While many of the council members granted that Steffen’s argument in favor of its own board had merit, there were concerns about cost and finding appointees who’d be willing to serve on the board.
Councilmember Carol Franzen, who admitted that she voted against changing to the joint board back in the day, said that “now that we’ve done it, I think it’s working.”
Plus, she said, there was an issue of ensuring a quorum: the minimum number of members required to conduct business and vote. Steffen’s proposal called for a five-member board, so in order to conduct business, the board would need to have at least three members present at each meeting. It was hard enough finding people willing to run for city council, Franzen said, much less find appointees to a city board.
“If we’re talking about bi-monthly meetings, and we have five members on the board, and we can’t get three there, then if somebody files for a variance and they’ve missed the deadline for the first meeting, they have to wait two months,” Franzen said. “Then, if they can’t find a quorum for that meeting, they have to wait an additional two months.”
After some more discussion, the council agreed to change the proposed ordinance to mandate monthly meetings, instead of bi-monthly meetings.
Mayor Chris Reinersman shared Franzen’s concern about guaranteeing a quorum.
“My concern is, on the practical level, is a) finding five people and then getting the five people here,” Reinersman said.
City Attorney Jack Gatlin, who also serves as the city attorney for Erlanger, which has its own board of adjustment, admitted that “there’s a lot of turnover in the members” of Erlanger’s board after being posed a question about that board’s attendance by Franzen.
“I can’t speak for the mayor or city administrator that are looking to fill those positions,” Gatlin said. “I just feel like every couple months, we are appointing a new person on the board.”
Reinersman added that sometimes it was good to get disinterested third parties to look at city issues, rather than someone who’s wrapped up in local interests.
Councilmember Brian Fehler agreed, saying the joint board “takes out the emotion and the bias.”
Then there was the issue of cost. The joint county board allows the city to offload its costs onto the county, rather than draw from its own operating budget to staff and operate the board. Plus, board members would be required to undergo legally mandated education in order to maintain their positions.
“[Kenton County Planning and Development Services] do the advertising for us, they make sure we have the quorum, they make sure there’s continuing education of members, which we’re not going to be responsible for,” Franzen said. “If we return that back to the city, then it’s going to cost us $10,000 or $11,000 at the minimum per year, plus we’re still paying [the county] for service they’re not giving us.”
Gatlin estimated the attorney’s fees for a typical board of adjustment meeting to be between $500 and $700. Reinersman affirmed Franzen’s figures, saying that a typical meeting, all expenses included, would run the city between $1,000 and $1,200. The board members themselves would take home a small stipend, $100 divided evenly among the board members, according to Steffen’s proposal, per meeting.
The council eventually agreed to invite Kenton County Planning and Development Services Director Sharmili Reddy to next month’s meeting to inform further discussion before the council performed a second reading and cast a final vote.